Issue 19 August 2014 The Recusant

An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerrilla war for the soul of Tradition.

“You know that there are certain people who call themselves, how are they called, Resistance? I wish I would know what they resist! . . . You find modernism, you find heresies, I don’t say in the Council itself, but in what is said, what is spread in the name of the Council today, you have heresies.”

- Fellay, April 2014

“Holy abandonment is found ‘not in resignation FROM THE DESK OF Inside: THE EDITOR: and laziness but at the heart of action and initia-

Dear , tive.’ It would be dishonest to pray for victory without really fighting for it. [...] ‘The things I pray  Little Catechism on The summer brings both good news and bad news, and it is to both of these that I wish to for’, St. Thomas More prayed magnanimously, (Avrillé Dominicans) dwell for a moment.

‘dear Lord, give me the grace to work for.’” The good news concerns the resistance in .  Long Live Emperor (“The Biography of ” p. 568) Originally the idea of the prior of Santa Cruz Nullaparte! Monastery in , Dom Tomas Aquinas OSB, (Fr. Chazal) and Fr. Pfeiffer, a meeting of Resistance was hosted on July 13th-14th by the Dominican  The Fall and Drift priory of La Haye aux Bonshommes, Avrillé, of Le Barroux France. Although principally intended as a meet- Contact us: ing for French priests, since no country or district (Pere Bruno, OSB) can ever consider itself completely isolated from

or unconcerned with its neighbours, and since the [email protected]  SSPX Watch! Resistance of its very nature has an undeniably www.TheRecusant.com international character, just like the SSPX always used to have, so it is pleasing to note that there were several visitors from overseas who were able to be present at these important proceedings, priests such as Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Fuchs and Fr. Trincado.

The main thing to come out of this meeting was the constituting of the into a “Society of Marcel Lefebvre,” which seems to be something similar to the

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 2 Editorial SSPX Watch Page 31 “Society of St. John Vianney” which once fought along side the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (before they ‘jumped the gun,’ selling-out to modernist before Bishop Fellay was SSPX - building bridges using the 1983 Code of Canon Law - via Fr. Chazal ready!) The principle object of the comes the news that Fr. Angles openly admits to deliberately getting the SSPX to move meeting can thus be considered as over to using the new Code of Canon law. Fr. Angles supposedly is quite unabashed about broadly having been achieved, namely this, admitting that although he prefers the new code, his main motive is “so as to build to establish the Resistance in France, bridges between us and the official [i.e. conciliar] church.” by getting the SSPX using the something which had nonetheless still same code as modern Rome, thus eliminating at least one of the differences between not properly been begun, despite the modern Rome and the SSPX. Marriage cases in particular, we are told, are now done presence of three persecuted former- exclusively according to the new code (marriage is precisely one of the areas where the SSPX priests (Frs. Pinaud, Rioult and new code is most at odds with teaching!) Salenave) for more than a year now. Astute readers will recall that the official position of the SSPX for the last two years (since Besides the Dominicans themselves, April 2012) has been one of complete and unqualified acceptance of the 1983 code of can- there are now a good half-dozen priests on law. That remains the case today, without a word of protest. in France itself (perhaps more?) who have left the SSPX and can in that sense be considered “fully Resistance”. It is to be hoped that we will soon see a good dozen or more Resistance “The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off.” centres springing up all around France. When one considers the thirty-or-more Re- - Fr. Nely, 2nd Assistant (cf. Eleison Comments No.367) sistance Mass centres in alone (not to mention a seminary, of course!) which are serviced in the main by just two priests, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, with some extra help (Fr. Voigt, Fr. Girouard, Fr. Chazal, on his occasional short visits...) So far there have been N.B. - New Website for no French Resistance Mass centres publicly known about, or if any existed the information Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary: about its address and location was difficult to come by. Since the setting up of the website “France Fidele”, there is now a grand total of one (1) Resistance Mass listed on its “Centres olmcs.jimdo.com de Messe” page at the time of writing. We must hope and pray that this changes fast.

As has been mentioned in the past, one of the differences between the Resistance and the Other Useful Websites: slowly unravelling neo-SSPX is the Apostolic spirit, the Apostolicity. How is it then that there could be priests resist Menzingen’s modernism and who leave the neo-SSPX who are in www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com any way less than apostolic? There may be various possible contributing factors, and it may be that each case is different, but from what I have been able to observe of the SSPX and the www.ecclesiamilitans.com

Resistance in this last year there seems to be one deciding factor, and it is a subject which www.truetrad.com must be dealt with as something which threatens to undermine the spirit and raison-d'être of the Resistance. I am speaking of sedevacantism. I use the word “sedevacantism” here as it is www.sacrificium.org commonly understood, to represent an idea, not especially to represent any one group who www.archbishoplefebvre.com espouse it. Readers may recall a previous editorial asking where the sedevacantist soup kitchens are to be found - one thing I find most worrying about sedevacantism is that some- www.resistere.org how it always seems to lead to a diminution of the apostolic spirit. Real life events appear to bear this out. filiimariae.over-blog.com (French)

Let us take the German speaking countries as an example. In this part of the world, similarly to in France, there are at least six priests who have left the SSPX since 2012 for what appear nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.co.uk (Spanish) to be the right reasons. And yet how many Mass centres are there, between these six priests? How many groups of faithful? Where is the growth of people being woken up and encouraged www.beneditinos.org.br to join together and act? Make no mistake, there is a growth of the Resistance, there are Mass (Portugese) centres, there are groups of faithful. Munich (Germany), Aigen (Austria) and Budapest (Hungary) in particular come to mind. And they are all ministered to by Fr. Fuchs - when he rexcz.blogspot.cz is not also visiting other places (England, Scotland, Czech Republic...) - the one who (Czech) insists that he will not entertain a sedevacantist stance as he sees it as a deviation and

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 30 SSPX Watch Editorial Page 3 Rosary Crusade - “Tractor Production Up Again! For the fifth year running!” distraction from the line of Lefebvre which he intends to follow faithfully. The Far be it from us (or anyone!) to even hint at creative accounting (wasn’t Bishop other priests (with the possible exception of Fr. Sauer, who is fairly advanced in age) are all Fellay the Bursar General for many years?) But going by the official totals turned in, in the to varying degrees sedevacantist. The most “Hard-line” and “dogmatic” of them gave over a majority of countries (two thirds) the numbers (monthly average) have noticeably fallen whole issue of his chapel’s little newsletter to an article attacking what he called the since last time (2012) (The picture is even worse if one compares the figures with those of “Erroneous Declaration” of 1974. If only Archbishop Lefebvre had had the wisdom of this the last-but-one crusade in 2010). And that, even after all the shameless ecu-Trad appeals to one sedevacantist priest, he might have seen the error of his ways, since after all, sede- get as many people as possible to participate, and the fact that at least four vacantism is the only truth which matters and outside of it error and downfall are inevita- different sets of intentions were being prayed in different parts of the world! ble. Incidentally, that little chapel for which the newsletter is written is the only place where Several questions remain: When will the curse of the Rosary Crusade fall? What this priest says Mass. form will it take? And when will Fr. Morgan (and many others) have the courage and Nonetheless, with the faithful in that part of the world we thank God that there is one priest integrity to admit that these rosary crusades have been used in a way that is grossly in the form of Fr. Fuchs who follows the path of Archbishop Lefebvre conscientiously, who offensive to heaven and that the real “official” intentions of this last one were so deeply is determined to alter nothing of what he has received from him and who will not allow him- unsound that no Catholic should have been encouraged to participate in them? In the British self to indulge his own fancies or proclivities at the expense of the faithful or use his depar- District newsletter we observe the following sleight of hand: ture from the SSPX as an excuse to make further uncalled-for changes. Is it a coincidence “Rosary Crusade that this one priest who will not entertain sedevacantism appears to be accomplishing more Our official crusade, which lasted from January 1st-June 8th 2014 has so far raised 45,553 than the others combined? Rosaries from this country. Any late ‘returns’ may still be sent to George’s House to be I ought to add a small note here, to anticipate a possible objection. It is true, there are some passed on to Menzingen towards the grand total. In any event we need to continue praying, mak- Resistance priests who have only one chapel. These are, for the most part, priests who were ing sacrifices and working for the return of the Church to Tradition, for the conversion of Rome, independent ‘friends of the SSPX’ from long before the crisis came to the fore. They already and for the and conversion of Russia through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” have their established chapel to which they feel tied, in one way or another. This is slightly Indeed we do need to. But what has that to do with “our official Rosary Crusade,” whose different to a priest who is newly thrown out, the first Resistance priest in his country, is intentions were pointedly not “for the conversion of Rome” or even “for the return of the starting with nothing, and who rather than travelling long distances to answer the call of the Church to Tradition”, but rather, “for return of Tradition [that’s us!] into the Church”..? If we faithful prefers to sit at home writing clever articles. Superficially there might appear some are now too embarrassed to admit what this last Rosary Crusade was actually for, would it similarity, but the spirit is different, and that, it seems to me, is what makes the crucial differ- not be better simply to avoid any mention of it, rather than encouraging people to join in and ence. There is a different spirit among priests who become convinced sedevacantists, and one then pretending afterwards that what they were really praying for was something different? of the ways in which this seems to make itself visible is a lessening of the apostolic spirit. Perhaps it is a question of their priorities being different. The Curse of the Squirrel: - Fr. Beaublat, until recently prior of Palyamkottai, India, has now left But what of the bad news? How does this relate to France? If you have not already guessed, the SSPX to join the Novus Ordo diocese of it is that at least two of the French priests (if our information is correct) are now sede- Toulon. Perhaps readers will recall how a few months ago, Fr. Beaublat, as creator and for- vacantists of one form or another. This is not to cast a pall over all of them. No doubt there mer editor of the now-defunct “Flying Squirrel,” was stoutly defended by Fr. are others who will prove differently, and as in the case of Germany and Austria mentioned Robert Brucciani? Ignoring the reams of evidence presented by the actual maga- above, we can see what a huge difference only one priest can make if he has the right zine itself, filled as it was from cover to cover with the most outrageous, blatant approach and attitude. Our Lord’s words in the Gospel about judging the tree by its fruits, it modernism (mediating on how it feels to be a door?!), Fr. Brucciani reached the seems to us, are as true as ever here, as I will attempt to demonstrate. perfectly natural and reasonable conclusion that it was really all the fault of the In recent months a certain amount of damage and weakening has been caused in chapels wicked Resistance, and that poor Fr. Beaublat was the injured party! founded by Resistance priests by the deliberate efforts of sedevacantist priests. Unlike our “Fr. Beaublat is not a liberal,” he wrote, “he is just indulgent (perhaps to a own efforts to get out of the clutches of the neo-SSPX, the issue here is not doctrinal (the fault).” Of course! How could anyone think otherwise! He continued: SSPX accepts the doctrine of modern Rome!) but personal (‘I am of the opinion that Francis “Unfortunately, I did not foresee the scurrilous campaign of the dishonourable is not the and that’s all that matters!’) Furthermore, there has been no open declaration priests who have the effrontery of calling themselves the ‘Resistance’ or even of war: these priests do not openly state their goals. Often, their way into the Resistance worse, ‘The Marian Corps.’” chapel is that they allow themselves to be thought of as a Resistance priest, and do not alert Would Fr. Brucciani like to alter his assessment of the situation in light of recent events, or people to their own change of priority or of thinking until the damage is done from inside. does he stand by his words? Is this too the fault of the “scurrilous” Resistance (perhaps we The words: “I’m not a sedevacantist! I just don't mention Francis in the Canon because I somehow “made” poor Fr. Beaublat leave the SSPX and join a modernist diocese?) don’t think he is the Pope!” are not mere hyperbole: they have been spoken in all seriousness www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 4 Editorial SSPX Watch Page 29 and offered as a serious explanation, with a straight face. Can anyone reproach the Resistance with such behaviour? Is anyone in any doubt what we stand for? When Fr. Pfeiffer comes to SSPX Watch! town for the first time, is there anyone, friend or foe alike, who can claim that they don’t British/Irish (!?) District Movements: - Fr. Walliez moves in. Is the erstwhile know what his “agenda” or thinking is? This behaviour, it seems to us, is not in the least hon- District Superior of “Be-ne-lux” being groomed to become District Superior ourable. The result, it goes without saying, can hardly be considered a good fruit either. The over here? Or is it that he being punished with demotion (not for disloyalty, visible damage is the splitting of a Resistance chapel which will occur as a result. The invisi- no, no: for getting caught!)..? Or is he simply getting out before the civil law- ble damage is the wasted of time and effort which could have been so much more productive- suit filed by Fr. Pinaud catches him up (after all, identity theft and email ly spent than attempting to convert resistance faithful to sedevacantism (which even many hacking are against the law over there)...? sedevacantist priests will admit, is not something essential!).

But back to France. Firstly the two French priests mentioned above were amongst those at the SSPX Movements Worldwide: - We won’t bore you with the whole list. It is mostly meeting at Avrillé, and so far we are not aware of any distinctions being made in the found- a circular movement with district Superiors leaving one district to go to another, thus ing of the ‘Society of Marcel Lefebvre’ regarding the question of sedevacantism. Time will of giving the impression of change whilst in reality maintaining the same faces at the course tell, but in our humble opinion, this is a mistake. Better an amicable parting of the General Chapter table, men whose loyalty has been proved at such great cost. (E.g. Fr. ways now than a bitter split later on, or worse, a growing number of priests who say that Stehlin replaces Fr. Couture, who replaces Fr. Wegner, who replaces Rostand...) Note- whilst they are not sedevacantist, they don't put the Pope’s name in the Canon; that they don't worthy perhaps is Fr. Rostand’s transfer (promotion?) to Menzingen as Commissar of put his name in the Canon because they are sedevacantist, but don’t worry, they won’t preach Propaganda “Communication,” a post which is being newly invented specially for him! about it; that they will occasionally perhaps mention it in the sermon, but won’t try to convert anyone to it; that they have to try to convert as many as possible to it and that they cannot Fr. Faure officially “punished” with letter of monition: - Fr. Faure recently understand how illogical, weak, wimpy and closet-modernist are all their colleagues who do received a letter from Fr. Christian “The-Jews-did-not-commit-Deicide” not share their sedevacantism; that sedevacantism is the single most important issue for any Bouchacourt, the soon-to-be District Superior of France, demanding that Catholic alive today, and furthermore you can’t attend any non-sedevacantist Mass, nor even he cease priestly functions immediately and report to a SSPX retreat a Mass of a sedevacantist with whom I disagree... (that last stage of the cancer is the most house, there to await further punishment. ...But just a advanced, a prelude to insanity usually found only in America). moment! Fr. Faure has been running around denouncing A “denier” of a Menzingen and doing everything within his power to build As Fr. Chazal rightly points out elsewhere in this issue, whilst there can be an amicable cease different kind...! up the Resistance since the Resistance began! The question -fire with some of the more reasonable sedevacantists, nevertheless to work together as if is, why are they punishing him only now? Why has it taken two years? Is there are no differences between us smacks of modern “,” in seeking as it does to it because it is slightly embarrassing to tell one of the most trusted right- Abp Lefebvre with ignore at least one important thing which divides us and paper over the cracks. One thing hand men of Archbishop Lefebvre, the man who founded the Mexican Fr. Faure in 1976 ought to be crystal clear: the Resistance stands or falls on its fidelity to Tradition as handed District, who founded La Reja seminary and who was selected to become down to us by Archbishop Lefebvre. If we oppose Menzingen and denounce Bishop Fellay, a bishop in 1988, that he has been very naughty and must say sorry to poor Bishop Fel- we do so on a sound footing precisely because he is the one who has invented something lay? Or is it that punishing a man as respected as Fr. Faure would have been counter- new, he is the one who has deviated from the path of the founder. If a priest or layman, productive, and that only now does Menzingen calculate that it has less to lose? departs the SSPX for any other reason, to pursue his own ideas, then that is something differ- But... Menzingen?! Act in a cynical, calculating way?! No, surely that cannot be! ent to what he has received from Archbishop Lefebvre, and thus he has only himself and his Here are Fr. Faure’s thoughts in his own words: own merit on which to stand. No, we did not resist the novelty of Menzingen only to suc- Dear Friends: cumb to another novelty of our own making. The moment we see the Resistance as a “loose federation” of “differing opinions”, the Resistance ceases to exist positively, because it does Thank you for your messages and prayers. not stand for anything positively, only negatively, being merely a collection of people with a He who is silent accepts. Non possumus! I wish to have no part (“nullam partem”) with common enemy. We cannot be defined only by what we are against, and what we are for is those who are now handing over the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to the modernists Tradition as handed down to us by the Archbishop, it is the line of the Archbishop, which who are occupying Rome until the time appointed by God to destroy them and liberate does not include sedevacantism. We did not refuse the new position of Menzingen only to the Church of the Father of lies, he who has a double-tongue like a snake, which is a adopt another new position of our own making. good image of those who use words with a double meaning, “ambiguity,” which is used in such a “subtle” and treacherous way by someone who you know well and his friends.

There will of course be those who disagree and of course I am giving my opinion - that is May God Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, Keeper of the Faith, keep us from the what Editorials are for! But I have a very strong feeling that this is an issue which is not greatest sin against the Faith. going to go away any time soon, and hiding from it or pretending that we can “all just get Father Faure

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 28 SSPX Watch Editorial Page 5 along” will not help matters. If there are those who see sedevacantism as the issue, or at any Philippines: rate as more important than following what we received from Archbishop Lefebvre, then so More Denial of Threatened! be it. We believe them to be mistaken, but never mind: let them go their way, and we shall go ours.

We sincerely hope, for that reason, that the French priests get their act together and decide that what they stand for is the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre, not just being against Men- zingen. If the issue is settled sooner, there will be less potential harm, and less time lost. And what is more, it will help dispel any lingering notions amongst those of us who are not French that the French seem to regard themselves as special, not required to do the dirty work of others like Fr. Pfeiffer (the “cowboy” ha ha!) or Fr. Chazal (“the American!”), and the suspicion that a misplaced national pride is in part what has been holding them back!

Here is a little more good news to finish on, lest I be accused of being a prophet of gloom. The meeting at Avrillé chose Fr. Roland de Merode to coordinate the Resistance in France, which is good news indeed. Although we know him only very little, he does seem a sensible and an honourable man, and he is moreover very widely respected and a man with large ex- perience going back some 30 years as an SSPX priest, most of that time spent working out- side of France (in Albania, for example). He is also an English speaker who takes an interest in what goes on elsewhere in the world. The other piece of good news is that Fr. Picot, who was ordained in 2010 and is the youngest priest so far to join the Resistance, is going to join Fr. Chazal in the ‘AustrAsian’ apostolate. At the time of writing, it looks as though he will be going to help out in Australia.

A New Resource At the time of writing, a new booklet entitled “Primary Sources for Studying the Crisis in the SSPX,” is being printed. It is designed as a collection into one place, in English, of all the documents from 2012 relating to the SSPX and Rome. A conscious decision was taken to include no commentary or interpolation, thus making the booklet entirely neutral and allow- ing it to be used by you, the reader, as a simple resource regarding the crisis in the SSPX. We intend, in addition, to send it to a large number of SSPX priests. Even though this will involve a certain amount of expense, we offer it free and without charge, confident that your generosity will once again enable us to defray our costs. A time is surely coming soon when there will be almost nobody left, priests or faithful, who are willing and able to listen or to learn, and a lot of ears have been stopped-up and hearts hardened even in the last year, hence the importance of us making one last effort now, before it becomes too late. Many thanks in advance for your generosity.

Finally, permit me to wish all our readers, friend and foe alike, a blessed Feast of the Assumption.

- The Editor

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 6 Mass Centres Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Page 27 Resistance Mass Centres At least the monastery in Brazil [Dom Tomás Aquinas’s Monastery of Santa Cruz] refused to follow Dom Gérard and that is an important point.

London: Kent: I believe that what has contributed to the loss of Dom Gérard was his desire to open to Drake House Queen of Martyrs House those who are not with us and who would profit from following Tradition. This was the 44 St. George’s Road, 17 West Cliff Road theme of what he wrote in his letter to the Friends of the Monastery two years after his Wimbledon Broadstairs arrival at Le Barroux. He was saying, “We will strive not to have this critical, sterile, nega- tive attitude. We will strive to open our doors to all those who, though they might not have London SW19 4EF Kent CT10 1PU our ideas, would love the liturgy, so that they too may benefit from the monastic life.”

Liverpool: Grantham: From that period, I was worried, considering this as a dangerous operation. It was the The Liner Hotel (contact us for details) opening of the Church to the world, and one must acknowledge that it was the world that Lord Nelson Street converted the Church. Dom Gérard let himself be contaminated by the milieu which he welcomed in his monastery. Rome may be proud to have won a big battle and to have hit Liverpool in the right place. It is sad.... L3 5QB

Glasgow: The Cambuslang Institute 37 Greenlees Road,

Cambuslang St. Augustine on Sedition

Lanarkshire G72 8JE “Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good

To see the dates & times of Mass and Holy Hour, please check the website : men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by www.therecusant.com/resistance-mass-centres the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the or contact us at: [email protected] sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently

endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties Resist Menzingen’s Modernism! in the way of heresy or , they will teach men Keep the Fight for the Faith going into the future! how God is to be served with a true disposition and

with great and sincere charity. The intention of such Thankyou for supporting men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or “The Recusant Mass Fund” because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their P.O. Box 423, return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those Deal, responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form Kent CT14 4BF no separate sects of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their England testimony the Faith which they know is preached in the .

[email protected] These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So Divine Providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people.” Account Name - The Recusant Mass Fund Sort code - 60-04-27 Branch - Canterbury Account no. - 91178258 (St. Augustine, Of True Religion, 6,11)

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 26 Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Page 7 [ N.B - Written by one of the Avrillé Dominicans, this article can be read in its original French at: Archbishop Lefebvre on Le Barroux http://filiimariae.over-blog.com/2014/06/petit-catechisme-du-sedevacantisme.html or at: http://www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes Extract taken from interview with Fideliter, issue 66, (November - December 1988) or in English at: www.ecclesiamilitans.com, whom we thank for bringing it to our attention.]

Archbishop Lefebvre: ...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all Little Catechism on Sedevacantism the who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura o of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi By Dominicus – Le Sel de la Terre N 79, winter 2011-2012 Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in with these Popes and A first edition of this little catechism appeared in Le Sel de la terre 36. This second edi- their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist tion, revised and noticeably enhanced, takes into account the debates and objections raised Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus by the first edition. Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction Introduction: between Scylla and Charybdis

of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, In the straits of Messina, between Sicily and Italy, there are two formidable reefs: Scylla your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” and Charybdis. It is important, when crossing, to avoid both reefs. Many imprudent or unskilled navigators, wanting to avoid one, were shipwrecked on the other: they fell from Thus, the positions will be clear. Scylla to Charybdis. The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the tradi- Currently, facing the crisis in the Church, there are two errors to avoid: modernism tional Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear. (which, little by little, makes us lose the faith) and sedevacantism (which leans toward This is what Dom Gérard did not see, and what confused him. Dom Gérard has always schism). If we want to remain Catholic, we must pass between heresy and schism, be- seen the liturgy and the monastic life, but he does not clearly see the theological problems tween Scylla and Charybdis. of the Council, especially Religious Liberty. In this “Short Catechism”, we study one of the two reefs. But the other must not be forgot- He does not see the malice of these errors. He was never too much worried about this. ten. Under pretext of avoiding the dangers of sedevacantism, the dangers of modernism What touched him was the liturgical reform and the reform of the Benedictine monaster- disseminated by the conciliar Church must not be minimized. ies. He left Tournay, saying, “I cannot accept this.” The Position of Archbishop Lefebvre Then, he founded a community of monks with the liturgy and with a Benedictine spirit. The position that we are going to put forward is that of Archbishop Lefebvre and that Very well, wonderful. But he did not appreciate enough that these reforms which led him which, at Avrillé, we have always defended. Here is a short summary: to leave his monastery were the consequences of errors in the Council itself. 1) Abp. Lefebvre publicly asked himself the question: “We find ourselves truly before an As long as they grant him what he wanted—this monastic spirit and the traditional excessively grave dilemma that, I think, has never arisen in the Church. That he who is liturgy—he has what he wants and is indifferent to the rest. But he has fallen into a snare: seated on the Throne of Peter participates in religions of false gods, I do not think that this the others have given up nothing of their false principles. has ever occurred in the entire history of the Church (Easter 1986). If someone says that It is sad because there are around sixty monks, twenty priests, and thirty nuns. There are the pope is an apostate, a heretic, a schismatic, according to the probable opinion of the nearly one hundred youth there, bewildered, whose families are worried or even divided. theologians (if it were true), the pope would no longer be pope and, consequently, we It is a disaster. would be in the “” situation. It is an opinion; I do not say that it cannot have

some arguments in its favor” (18-3-1977). “It is not impossible that this hypothesis will Interviewer: The nuns of the monastery Notre Dame de l’Annonciation remain very one day be confirmed by the Church, for it has some serious arguments. Many indeed are much attached to you. the acts of Paul VI that, accomplished by a bishop or a theologian twenty years ago,

would have been condemned as suspect of heresy, favoring heresy” (24-2-1977). Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, indeed. They came to make protestations of their affection... 2) However, after reflection, he preferred the opposite solution: “But I do not think that it However, I do not seek this affection, but rather that they remain attached to Tradition. is the solution that we should take, that we should follow. For the moment, I personally Are they willing to submit to a modernist authority? Here, indeed, is the question. If need- think that it would be a mistake to follow this hypothesis” (18-3-1977). “But this does not ed they must separate themselves from Dom Gérard to keep the Faith and Tradition.

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 8 Catechism on Sedevacantism Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Page 25 mean, for all that, that I am absolutely sure to be correct in the position that I take; I am  The superior changes the problems. “There are so many things going wrong in placing myself there in a prudential manner. It is rather under this area that I place my- France, in the world, in the Church, that we must not dwell on petty quarrels over self, more than under the theological domain, purely theoretical. I think that God asks us details. We have to expand our horizons.” to have clear ideas not only from a purely theoretical and theological viewpoint, but also  The superior benefits (consciously or not) of the fact that his subjects trust him and in practice, when things are very difficult and delicate, and to act with a certain wisdom, are attached to his person. At le Barroux, many could not imagine that Dom Gerard a certain prudence that can seem a bit in contradiction with certain principles, not to be could one day go astray. This is an opportunity to stress that we must be committed of pure logic” (5-10-1978). “As long as I do not have the proof that the pope is not the to principles more than to people. Why? Because people can change, whereas prin- pope, well, I presume that he is, that he is pope. I do not say that there cannot be argu- ciples do not change. We can recover from the failures, even serious failures, of a ments that can put one in doubt in certain cases. But one must have the proof that it is person, we do not recover from the abandonment of principles. It was Mgr. Freppel not only a doubt, a valid doubt. If the argument is doubtful, we do not have the right to who said, “We never recover from the sacrifice of principles.” take enormous consequences away from it!” (16-1-1979). “The Priestly Society does not accept [this] solution, but, based on the history of the Church and the doctrine of the  The superior makes those who resist the orientation that he endeavours to impose theologians, thinks that the pope can promote the ruin of the Church by choosing bad feel guilty about their position; he reproaches them for disturbing the community, collaborators and letting them act, signing decrees that do not use his infallibility, some- as if the trouble wasn’t the result of the actions and words of the authority, but of times even by his own admission, and that cause considerable damage to the Church. those who are worried about it, and rightly so.

Nothing is more dangerous for the Church than liberal popes, who are in continual con-  The superior repeats that we have to keep the sense of the Church: “Beware of the tradiction” (13-9-1982). “In practice, this does not have influence on our practical con- dangers of schism and of sedevacantism!” (A spectre that is raised frequently to- duct, because we firmly and courageously reject all that is against the faith, without day…). knowing from whence it comes, without knowing who is guilty” (5-10-1978). How did the community of le Barroux react? For most, trust was necessary because Dom What are we talking about? Gerard was the leader, thus he had the graces of state. If, despite everything, we asked questions, if we did not agree, we had to in any case not propagate a bad spirit, so as to What is sedevacantism? preserve the unity of the community. Unity became more important than truth. But when Sedevacantism is the opinion of those who think that the most recent popes, since Se- you put unity above truth, you lose both: you lose the truth, and you also lose unity. This cond Vatican Council, are not true popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occu- is what happened at le Barroux. pied, which is expressed in by the formula sede vacante. One of the fathers of the monastery, who had important responsibilities, was personally Where does this opinion come from? opposed to concelebrating in the new rite, but he especially did not want to criticize his This opinion was caused by the very grave crisis which has been occurring in the Church superior, Dom Gerard. He thus held a good principle: no compromise with the new mass; since the last Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called “the third world but he remained attached to a person who contradicted this principle. He finally gave in war.” and concelebrated, when he had vowed that he would never do it. He accepted at least once. This was the case with most of them. I think two or three of them never did it and The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or would never want to. That being said, not concelebrating the new mass oneself was not allow to be propagated very serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liber- enough: one also had to protest against those who did it. This was one of the reasons for ty, collegiality, etc. my departure: I could not bear knowing that my fellow brothers participated in con- The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and celebrations, particularly a father ordained at the same time as me in Écône on June 27, consequently they consider them not to be “real popes”. 1986, who did it quite often. Not only was it out of the question that I use the new rite (they would never have dared to ask it of me), but I could not stay in a community where Could you briefly explain what the crisis in the Church consists of? it had become a normal thing. I will do this by quoting Fr. Gleize: In this type of situation, the superior does not necessarily ask you to be in agreement on “That which speaks the most is all the speeches published in the Osservatore Ro- all points with him; he simply asks you to be quiet: “If you have any reluctance or reser- mano that constantly reaffirm the principle of religious liberty, state secularism vations, keep quiet, do not speak of them.” If, in effect, you keep quiet, that allows him to and ecumenism, a principle that is in formal contradiction with the constant and continue to advance in his direction, without any obstacles. And he who agrees to keep unanimous teaching of the pontifical from before Vatican II. […] quiet, by keeping quiet, and by not expressing his convictions, slowly ends up losing “In the past, it was possible that some popes were not equal to their mission. They them. He one day accepts to take a first step, and we know that the first step is the hardest. www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 24 Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Cathechism on Sedevacantism Page 9

could fail to keep, at one time or another, their pastoral role, putting in more or less The Fall and Drift of Le Barroux serious, more or less direct danger the unity of the faith in the Holy Church. But

[Editor’s note - the following is an extract from an article by Père Bruno O.S.B in the this attitude explains itself for essentially moral reasons. None of these popes were spring 2014 issue of the Le Sel de La Terre, published by the Dominicans of Avrillé. In the attached to error by intellectual conviction. They all fell short without a fundamen- article, Père Bruno recounts Dom Gérard’s signing of an agreement with Rome and then tally intellectual adherence to error, and this came sometimes from a lack of cour- explains three factors that changed the way of thinking of the monks in that community. age in the middle of persecution, such as with Liberius, sometimes from a certain These factors are: 1) the internal influence: the role of the superior; 2) the external influ- naiveté and an excess of mediation, as with Honorius and Vigilius, sometimes even ence: contamination; and 3) the cessation of combat. The extract below deals with the first from a sort of theological intemperance as with John XXII. The most serious atti- of these three. tude of all, that of Pope Honorius, warranted the favens hæresimcensure. It did not cause this pope to be condemned as a formal heretic […] The second extract is taken from the well known interview of Archbishop Lefebvre with Fideliter, in 1988, in which he comments on the defection of Le Barroux to modern Rome.] “But in view of these isolated cases, the consistent attitude of all the popes since the has an entirely different appearance. The daily preach- How did the Community Change? ing of these sovereign pontiffs is constantly spotted with false principles of reli- gious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality. These are grave errors, and they are the 1)The internal influence: the role of the superior th consequence of this “heresy of the 20 century,” to use the expression of Madiran, The example of le Barroux shows that when a superior wants to join with Rome, he can the heresy of neo-modernism. Constant and repeated errors, from John XXIII and prepare his subjects in order to lead them in this direction, even if many are at first opposed Paul VI to Benedict XVI, errors that are not the consequence of passing weakness to it (which was the case at le Barroux). He can, in different ways, and more or less con- or naiveté, but, on the contrary, are the expression of a fundamental adherence of sciously, condition his community. This explains why the monastery, as a whole, followed the intelligence, the affirmation of an informed conviction. This is why such a situ- Dom Gerard. ation is really and truly without precedent.” – cf. Fr. Gleize, Vu de Haut14 (2008), p.95-96.  The superior filters information (I spoke of periodicals suppressed at the community table, and replaced by others) and presents news in his own way. Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?

 The superior uses a double language in order to please everyone. He adapts to the No, far from it. To use the terms of a sedevacantist: the “sedevacantists” are scattered along at least six dividing lines: person he is speaking to or to his audience: he is hard with the hard, and soft with the soft. If you manifest your distress to him, he replies: “I understand you, I am vigilant.” If, on the contrary, you find that things are not progressing fast enough:  Total vacancy / formal vacancy and material permanence (the “Cassiciacum “Be patient, we are advancing, but we must go slowly.” This double language can Thesis”); sometimes go as far as lying.  Acceptance of without apostolic mandate / refusal of these con- secrations;  The superior endeavours to reassure those who are worried. Dom Gerard often told  Rejection out of the Church of all those who are not sedevacantists / refusal of me: “The community is in good health, we are strong, so don’t be worried!” I re- such a rejection; plied that the community was really not in good health, and I gave him some exam-  Ecclesiastical laws keep their imperative force / the laws are stripped of exec- ples. utory force;  The superior insists on the obligation of trusting him: relations with Rome come  Acceptance of the principle of a conclave outside of the Roman line / refusal of under the prudential domain, we must therefore trust authority. And if we are not such a possibility; completely in agreement, we submit. Trust and obedience…  Vacancy of authority has lasted since the death of Pius XII / since ‘Pacem in terries’ / since the death of John XXIII / since the proclamation of religious  The superior often reminds of the duty of sanctifying oneself, which is obviously of liberty (December 7, 1965) (and our sedevacantist forgot yet one more theory: the utmost importance. But for him, it is a question of sanctifying oneself without since the replacement of Paul VI by a double). taking into account the crisis; whereas we must sanctify ourselves in the crisis and

by the crisis. The crisis is an occasion of sanctifying ourselves: at first sight, it is an This gives us, unless I am mistaken, 160 possibilities. obstacle, but God changes obstacles into means. In a monastery, in a period of crisis, we cannot therefore content ourselves with living the religious life well, as if there But that which is common among all sedevacantists is that they think that one must not was no crisis. pray for the pope in public.

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 10 Catechism on Sedevacantism Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Page 23 Horror of heresy, and of the heretic as the carrier, is an indispensable protection.

Sedevacantist Arguments The same goes for Cum ex apostolatus. Why be afraid of looking at this document face to

On what arguments do sedevacantists base their theories? face, whereas it ought to be integrated into our doctrinal position? Like the Code of Canon They have a priori arguments and a posterior arguments. A priori, they say, the pope Law (Canon 188.4), Cum Ex does not say how one goes about deposing the Pope, which is being a heretic, he cannot be a true pope, which can be proven in a theological manner (a too difficult a question, even for Paul IV... who does not answer it; and we’re not going to heretic cannot be the head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore…) or in a be getting any help from the clergy of Rome... etc. The Pope is exempt from penal procedures, he is judged by no one. If he falls, it is by divine right. legal manner (Church laws invalidate the election of a heretic, but Cardinal Wojtyla – or Ratzinger – was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore …). Cum Ex was abrogated by Pius X in the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25th A priori, they say again, the current “pope” was consecrated bishop with the new episcopal December, 1904, #29. But the dogmatic aspect of Cum Ex is unavoidable, and we must consecration rite invented by Paul VI, so he is not a bishop. But to be Pope, one must be comply with it. It is not simply a question of good faith in our debate with the sedevacantist, Bishop of Rome. Therefore … it is a question of submission to the Magisterium, which asks us to keep our distance from heretics, something which Menzingrad is not doing, obviously. A posteriori, they say finally, we note that the actions taken by the popes are bad or erroneous, while they should be covered by infallibility. Therefore, these popes are not Finally, we have to be prepared for the worst: they are going to demolish the papacy itself. really popes. The papers of the Alta Vendita date back two centuries. The Protocols speak of a Papacy emptied of all substance. The Revolution never stops. When the heel of the Blessed Virgin The Theological Argument of the Heresy of the Pope crushes its head it will stop; but not before. Francis began by renouncing the title of Pope, he multiplies his antics as much as he can. The Tiara bothered Benedict XVI. John-Paul II But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate? spoke clearly in 1995 or 1996 of the necessity of rethinking the petrine ministry and Paul VI St. says that a pope who formally and manifestly became a heretic did more of that sort of thing than all his successors. They no longer want a monarchical would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be institution of the Church. It is still there, but its days are numbered. Once it has been liqui- a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy dated beyond any possible doubt, what are we planning to do? It is prudent to prepare would have to be manifest in the eyes of all. But though the popes since Paul VI, and espe- ourselves in advance, above all when the problem is at the gates. We’re going to be finding cially John Paul II, make heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy rather of- Pope-Presidents, democratically elected by a college enlarged to who knows how many ten, it cannot easily be shown that they are aware of rejecting a dogma of the Church. And Cardinals. I even think they will be inviting to vote, or even non-Catholic as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was “”, the Anglicans for example. They are going to keep the superstar side of things, Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct. but continue to empty the papcy of its substance, everything will be clownified. They’ll develop collegiality and national churches, which will be increasingly dissenting or If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he schismatic with regard to Rome, even ones which will soon be saturated with LGBT, be- then conclude that he is no longer pope? cause Rome will never be sufficiently left-wing for the Revolution.

No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the I think we have to watch the sun setting. To the extent that, and as gradually as, they make “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can it disappear, we recognise that disappearance. Thus to the question which is asked so often continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the in the mouths of those who join us, “Are you with the man in white, over there in Rome?” only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a we will reply “Yes, or at least what’s left of him.” “I wish there were more, because Catho- declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy. lic as I am I want to attach myself as much as possible to the visible unity. But over in

“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the Rome they’re busy shrinking everything, don’t you agree?” “We don’t like these attacks on common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an the visible, hierarchical unity of the Church. We neither provoked them nor sought them, like the modernists and the sedevacantists. They come to us.” even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a mani- fest heretic by the Church” (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2). Once the Papacy is totally demolished, which will not please God, we will prefer not to say: “You see! I was right!” We will lament, that is all, and we will continue our road with Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion. Eternal Rome.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or “Deus qui diligis animas” head? In Iesu et Maria Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still Francois Chazal+

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 18 Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Catechism on Sedevacantism Page 11 We are Nullapartists pure and simple, they are Nullapartists of the “beyondist,” be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit “complicationist” sort who go beyond the simple declaration “We have nothing to do with abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head can- this new Rome,” to express a sentence of condemnation and demand, to varying degrees, not influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as adhesion to this condemnation. is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not re- ceive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.” I asked one of my faithful to put this question to Bishop Pivarunas. ‘Would you accept a seminarian who still believes that Francis is the Pope?’ His answer: “No, of course not!” It In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he works the same the other way around. can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-

We are keeping the Pope and we demand of our clergy a similar taking of position, under exist with heresy. oath if necessary (cf. the oath which Archbishop Lefebvre made for this topic) for the reasons given above. That is much more prudent provided one does not try to ‘Catholicise’ The Canonical Argument of the Heresy of the Pope the official church like Bishop Fellay. Nullaparte’s Waterloo was 14th July, 2012. And what about their canonical argument? Events prove that our position has the inconvenience of exposing us to the Roman machina- The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of tions, whereas the sedes are immune. The crisis of 2012 proves that now. We exaggerated Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost our position, wrapped ourselves up in it securely and we trapped ourselves in it, neglecting its legal force (even sedevacantist priests recognize it: “We cannot use the bull of Paul IV to consider that because of the situation in the Church, all positions have their own pitfalls, to prove that the is currently vacant, but only to prove the possibility that it can our ones being smaller perhaps, but just as capable of killing. happen…” (Fr. F. Ricossa, Solalitium 36, May-June 1994, p. 57-58, note 1). That which We took a good beating because we indulged ourselves. Let us profit from this beating, remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, consequently, it cannot be because beatings of this nature are very educational. But I am not going to ask for another made to say more than the theological argument already examined. one by getting myself trapped in the swirling waters of sedevacantism. Normally a good beating is enough to resolve a problem. Yet the code in the Gasparri edition (C.I.C. cum fontium annotatione, Romæ) refers It needs to be explained to some that the faithful are still in shock from the blood-bath of in a note to the Cum ex apostolatus constitution. 2012. We can’t ask them to swallow lessons on sedevacantism, or to the effect that there is These notes of the code in the Gasparri edition mention the sources of the code. But this a certain liberty on this subject... with all the other worries which assail us. Common sense. does not mean that all of its sources are still in force!

Amongst other things, we cannot present our position as a question of Faith, but as a simple The 1917 code says in Canon 6 (5) that the punishments that are not mentioned in the application of nulla pars cum haereticis, a probabilior solution, just and prudent, in the code are abrogated. Now, the Cum ex apostolatus constitution was a penal law, because it words of Archbishop Lefebvre. inflicted the revocation of an ecclesiastical office, and the punishments that it prescribed

Otherwise we fall into the same trap as the Sanbornists and others, who have turned this were not picked up again in the code. tough question into a real religion and expend considerable energy on a thesis which There is more: even before the new code, St. Pius X had already abrogated Paul IV’s doesn’t hold (Cassiciacum), rather like Fr. Basil of Le Barroux, with his 3,000 pages on constitution by his consitition Vacante sede apostolic of December 25, 1904 (§ 29), which religious liberty. Archbishop Lefebvre was always on his guard against exaggerating, and declares null any censure able to remove the active or passive voice from the cardinals of that only strengthened the power of his choice which is to leave the resolution of this prob- the conclave. And Canon 160 of the code declares that the election of the pope is reg- lem to the competent authorities when they have refound and returned to Tradition. ulated only by this constitution of St. Pius X. The same way the Cekadians and Sanbornists refuse like donkeys (they remain extremely The constitution of Pius XII of December 8, 1945, Vacantis apostolicæ sedis, which intelligent, but I am speaking here of their stubbornness, I can’t think of a better simile, replaced that of St. Pius X, takes the same position on this subject: “No cardinal may be sorry), I would say, to consider that some renowned theologians disagree with their excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the sovereign pontiff, under position, we are tempted to rob ourselves by refusing to take the whole ensemble of the- no pretext nor for cause of , suspension, interdiction or other ological authorities as our guide. ecclesiastical impediment. We lift the effect of these censures for this type of election Let us not commit the same error by refusing a priori to consider the argument put forth by only, keeping them in force for everything else” (n. 34). those authors who say that a heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, by divine right (even if, invariably, they give this opinion sententia probabili). It is dangerous to lose the notion The Argument of the Nullity of the Pope’s Episcopal Consecration that the Church is horrified by a heretical Pope; that a heretical Pope is a delinquent in the Faith of the worst kind, a real mass-murderer of souls, as these numberless souls who fall Some sedevacantists argue that the current pope was consecrated bishop with the into hell, and who can truly say “Bishop, it by you that I die” eternally, give witness. new rite invented by Paul VI, a rite that they deem invalid; thus, Benedict XVI is not

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 12 Catechism on Sedevacantism Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Page 21 a bishop or pope. go about deposing him, or even how to declare him as such. (There is no way of proceeding The new ritual of episcopal consecration comes from a prayer found in ‘Apostolic because it is God who has to take charge, in my opinion).

Tradition’, a work apparently from St. Hippolytus and dating from the beginning of the The only one who goes into the details of what must be done after noting that the Pope is a third century. Even if this attribution is probable, it is not agreed upon by all; some think heretic, is Billuard, but he somehow doesn’t seem to be in favour with the sedevacantists, that it is an “anonymous compilation containing elements of different ages”. As for St. because his thesis supports the idea that the Pope would stay Pope. In addition, sede- Hippolytus, he is thought to have been an for some time before reconciling with vacantists often feel obliged to work behind the scenes, a bit like the Jansenists of yester- Pope St. Pontian at the moment of their common martyrdom (in 235). It is from that year, and they sometimes use double talk. “I’m not a sedevacantist, but Francis is not the same work that Canon number 2 of the new mass issues. Pope” some of them say.

Yet, this prayer of the consecration is taken up again with a few variations in two orien- I have two bishops who were in my year at seminary, the good one is Bishop Fulham who tal rites, the Coptic rite used in Egypt and the Eastern Syrian rite, used notably by the had very strong sedevacantist sentiments. He was very honest and open about it and pre- Maronites. It was therefore adopted by post-conciliar reformers to manifest the unity ferred to leave the seminary, become a priest with the sedevacantists, then he left sede- between the traditions of the three great patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. vacantism the same way he entered it, loyally.

By reason of this closeness to two Catholic rites, it cannot be affirmed that Paul VI’s The other one is Bishop Neville who left in the year following his , attached him- prayer is invalid. self to Bishop Sanborn who consecrated him, only to leave him again a little while later. I think he ought to have been a little bit more open instead of letting himself profit from the Isn’t it true that the new rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite that was de- excellent formation of the time then getting himself ordained before leaving us. We see here clared invalid by Leo XIII? the necessity of an oath, by which I am still bound, because quo ad substantiam, nothing has changed since John-Paul II. It is true that the rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite, but not to the rite con- demned by Leo XIII. The Anglican and Episcopalian churches also introduced a new Nevertheless, if we are able to sit down together and go through the theological authorities consecratory prayer, taken from St. Hippolytus, with the aim to have a rite acceptable to calmly, I think that the sede hypothesis is respectable. There is an objective intrusion, a for- Catholics, after the condemnation of the Anglican by Leo XIII. eign body which has installed itself and which has no right to be there. Francis is a heretic, and because of his heresy, everything that he commands is subject to caution, even good A Posteriori Arguments things that he might do, in the sense that the modernists use good to accomplish evil, as Archbishop Lefebvre says in his preface to “I Accuse the Council”.

Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their opinion in the errors The lame, wishy-washy refutations of sedevacantism haven’t stopped, liberals refuse even to of the Council and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar qualify as a heretic for fear of the bogeyman, and the sedevacantist are put on Church? the same level as schismatics whereas many of them save their souls. Their being mistaken Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have is perfectly understandable, that’s why we see some of them who are more reasonable like been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium (OUM), and con- the Bishop Pivarunas’s CMRI, Bishops Morello, McKenna or others... but not Sanborn, nor sequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on reli- the conclavists. I don’t know where or at what stage Fr. Abrahamovicz is. gious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.[1] Which leads us to the burning question: In that case, what collaboration with the reasonable In reality, if one accepted this reasoning, then it would be necessary to say that the whole sedevacantists? Catholic Church disappeared at that moment and that “the gates of hell had prevailed None. Just a cease-fire. We will take care of sedevacantists who call us, individually, but against her.”. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of all the often this comes at the cost of difficulties. But as they are neither schismatics nor heretics, bishops, of the whole teaching Church. nor excommunicated (contrary to what is claimed by those who attack them in such a mala- It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not droit way), it is a duty for us on condition that they do not disturb minds. Bishop Fellay still covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons ex- tolerates certain non-una-cum priests in the Society, and at this level even supports the Re- plained in the article on “the authority of the Council” that appeared in Le Sel de la terre sistance. Nonetheless, official collaboration with sedevacantism is impossible.

35 (winter 2000-2001). Why? Because the positions are incompatible, unfortunately. Contra factum non fit argu- mentum, the facts on the ground show that a chapel ends up splitting when it has a signifi- Can you summarize the essential parts of this argument? cant number of sedevacantists within its ranks. At the start it’s “We’re being prudent and The main reason for which conciliar teaching on religious liberty (for example) is not understanding!” but the project fails a little while later, for in the eyes of the sedevacantists covered by the OUM is that the conciliar magisterium does not present itself as teaching at best we are liberals, illogical, lukewarm or timid or less. Some of them go further than

that. www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 20 Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Catechism on Sedevacantism Page 13 We men are always eager to do battle, and we wish that God would act like us, quickly, just truths to be believed or held in a firm and definitive manner. Conciliar teaching no long- like that: good riddance! For God, what counts is the revelation of the goodness or malice of er presents itself as “necessary for salvation” (this is logical, since those who profess it hearts, and for that there’s nothing like unfaithful superiors for ensuring that everyone has to think that it is possible to be saved even without the Catholic Faith). show his cards. Since it is not imposed with authority, this teaching is not covered by infallibility. The Once it is done, the Caiaphases get themselves thrown in the bin by God who intervenes same thing can be said of liturgical laws (the new mass; new canonizations…) and ca- suddenly, and they also risk the other great bin which is eternal hell. nonical laws (the new Canon Law…) set forth by these latest popes: they are not covered

The problem with sedevacantists is their obtuse side and their militant bitterness. They don’t by infallibility, although normally they should have been. want to listen. They come out with their chosen authors, particularly Bellarmine, and refuse to give attention to the differing theological opinions or theological qualifications of Cajetan, The Cassiciacum Thesis John of Thomas, Billot, Suarez, Builluart, Garrigou-Lagrange (de Verbo Incarnato, p232)... Can you explain what is meant by being pope “materialiter”? They dishonestly pass off the probable judgements of the authors who go in their direction as The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist absolutely certain conclusions, which I have been able to read directly in Tanquerey, Cor- in a visible manner (for she has received from Our Lord the promise that she will endure onata, Prummer. until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. And even though Bellarmine says that Cajetan supports a conclusion which is opposed to his own, they say that Cajetan corroborates sedevacantism. The partisans of the so-called “Cassiciacum Thesis” have come up with a subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the pa- They knowingly neglect to admit that half (or less) of those who think that a heretical Pope pal authority because there was an obstacle in him (heresy). He is pope materialiter, but would not be Pope, also think that it is an impossible hypothesis or only a hypothesis. not formaliter.

That’s exactly what Fr. Cekada does in his little work of 2006. It goes through and reviews all the favourable authors and it omits to tell us in what way they qualify their affirmations, and Can you detail the arguments of this “thesis”? above all it omits any contrary opinions. Why such a need for a cover up? Because you need Here are the arguments as summarized by a priest who professes them: to prove that putting the name of a heretic in the is a sacrilege or that  The starting point is an induction: the acts of Paul VI (because it was he at that time something which is only an opinion is an absolutely irrefutable certainty for even the most who was reigning in Rome) contribute to the destruction of the Catholic religion and average Catholic. That resisting such evidence is a mortal sin against the Faith... etc. its replacement by the religion of man in the form of concealed Protestantism. From Let us take up Billuard again, quoted by the Dominicans: “According to the most common this comes the certitude that Paul VI does not have the usual intention of obtaining opinion, Christ, through a particular providence, for the common good and tranquillity of the the good / end of the Church, which is Jesus Christ plenum gratiæ et veritatis.

Church, continues to give jurisdiction to a Pontiff, even one who is manifestly heretical, until  The usual intention of obtaining the good of the Church is a necessary condition he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.” (de Fide, V,III,3,2) (the ultimate disposition) for a subject elected pope to receive the communication of

The whole problem is there. Behind all this abundant reasoning all over the place, it has less pontifical authority with makes him to be with Jesus Christ and hold the role of His Vicar on Earth. to do with an act of reason than with emotions, based, as Fr. Cyprian (RIP) used to say, on the feeling of having been left orphans in the Faith by the cruel reigning authorities. Alas, yes, we  Consequently, Paul VI is devoid of all pontifical authority: he is not pope formaliter; have been left orphans, and some people take that very badly, which turns the debate to vine- he is not Vicar of Christ. In a word, he is not pope.[2] gar. We can understand them, but we need to know what to expect.  This necessitates the affirmation that if Paul VI is not pope formaliter, he yet re- Contrary to the liberal penchant, there is something noble and sad in this refusal of a father, mains pope materialiter, as a simple elected subject, seated on the Pontifical Seat, and that makes the debate so much the more difficult. They tell us: “Look what is going on in neither pope nor anti-pope.

Rome! How is that possible?” How can one not agree about what is going on? Armed with Does this solution resolve the difficulties of “pure” sedevacantism? this, they are carried away with this sadness, they allow themselves to be absorbed by it, alas. It does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism: how can the Church continue to That’s why one might think that in spite of their voluminous reasoning there is this sadness be visible? For some proponents of “the thesis”, there is no longer any hierarchy at all and this pain which prevents them from seeing clearly. When all’s said and done we can’t (“the nominations of cardinals and bishops are acts of pontifical jurisdiction, which is condemn them, contrary to Cardinal Ratzinger who said that they needed to all be laicised, precisely absent and which nothing can replace”). For others, the pope materialiter has whereas he is really the one who ought to be, for having created so many orphans power (how?) to constitute a hierarchy materialiter. But such a hierarchy, devoid of its in the Faith. “form,” is not the visible hierarchy of the Church (no more than the Orthodox hierarchy Then there is the question “And then?” Prummer says. Nobody, he says, has any idea how to is the hierarchy of the Church). Moreover, this theory sets off new difficulties – at least

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 14 Catechism on Sedevacantism Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Page 19 for those who say that the pope materialiter has the power to constitute a hierarchy Long Live ‘Emperor Nullaparte’ ! materialiter – because it implies that the pope materialiter, devoid of authority, still has enough authority to change the laws on papal election. Fr. Francois Chazal

“Deliver us from evil,” our Lord has us saying so often, and so as to avoid a greater cascade What do you think of the arguments upon which this solution is based? of evils, we’re keeping the Pope, without having any part in his actions: This solution is not founded on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, 1. To keep our visibility, which is essential in the apostolate to express Catholic unity, John of St. Thomas, etc.) examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one, prior to because the Church is a visible society, in the world, thanks to a visible head in the Council, ever imagined this theory of “the absence of the usual intention to obtain the Rome; good of the Church” that would form an “obex” (obstacle) to receiving the “being-with- 2. To keep the principle of authority, in other words, to conserve pontifical authority Christ,” the form of the papacy. for the day when it will be restored, even if there is a certain eclipse at the moment. It plays on the ambiguity of the word “intention”. Proponents of the thesis recognize that 3. Negatively, because it is a question which is beyond us, about which authors are the intention must be in the person of the pope (“this intention is the ultimate disposition divided, which does not bring any incontestable resolution for everyone; and which of the subject to receive communication of the pontifical authority”), but at the same time will thus be resolved only at the end of the crisis. they affirm that it has nothing to do with the personal intention of the pope. We can agree 4. Because this option is supported by the sensus Catholicus of the faithful, who ask us with them when they say that recent popes harm the common good of the Church – and not to follow it. that is precisely what created the state of necessity – but it remains to be proven that such (I will only touch on the question of the loss of office of a heretical Pope, which is the crux is truly the personal intention of the popes, and then that such an intention deprives them of sedevacantism.) of authority. Everything, including the study done by the Dominicans (if one removes the sacramental, but The “Una Cum” Question I see that in the last issue of Sel de la Terre they have made some progress on this question) seems to indicate that if a heretical Pope were to lose office, it would only be hypothetically. Aren’t the sedevacantists right to refuse to name the pope at Mass in order to show It is not seemly for a Pope to be a heretic, so some say that, by divine right, he falls ipso fac- that they are not in communion with (“una cum“) a heretic (at least materially) and to... his heresies? The expression “una cum” in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that But they never affirm this hypothesis as certain, only probable, which means that the contra- he is “in communion” with the person of the pope and his erroneous ideas, but rather that ry can be proved. one wants to pray for the Church “and for” the pope. On the other hand, this hypothesis doesn’t get us anywhere, because even in divine right God declares what He decides to do, as in the case of Heli; or he doesn’t declare it, as in the case In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have of the High Priests from AD 33 to 70. It is up to Him. If we are evil, He tolerates evil leaders, been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the case of a bish- for the time necessary. op celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church “una cum […] me indigno servo tuo,” which does not mean that he prays “in communion with myself, your For Caiaphas, it’s wrong to attack Fr. Pfeiffer. Caiaphas is worse than everything and as he is unworthy servant” (which does not make sense!), but that he prays “and for myself, your of lower authority than a Pope, while being the Sovereign Pontiff of the Mosaic religion, we see that it would have been easier to remove him (even if nothing is difficult for God). unworthy servant.” But we see that God does not remove him, and what is more, confirms his successors too so What does St. Thomas Aquinas think of this? that they persecute the Church and fight against the truth, as St. Augustine says: God leaves St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, when he comments on the prayers of the the impious who have no intention of changing, for the required time, so as to try the just. De Mass (III, Q. 83, A. 4, corpus) equates “una cum” with the expression “et pro”: then the iure, Caiaphas is kaput. De facto, he has a role to play in the passion of Christ... Absolutely priest commemorates in silence [it is the beginning of the Canon] first those for whom the similar to Pope Francis. sacrifice is offered, that is, for the Universal Church, and for “those who constitute it in dignity” [the pope, the bishop, the king]; then for those in particular who offer this sacri- All the way along we see that Christ does not touch anything of the hierarchical order, but fice or for whom it is offered [the memento of the living]. attacks very, very clearly the problem which rots the Mosaic religion. We must follow this example. After Pentecost, the Apostles never bothered with getting rid of the gangsters in power. But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for her- etics? No, the argument of Caiaphas is very strong; taken directly from Scripture; and the patristic St. Thomas Aquinas does not prohibit praying for heretics, but merely observes that, in commentaries must be excellent on this subject.

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 18 Catechism on Sedevacantism Page 15

the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are A.M.D.G. known to and tested by the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio) (III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2). For, he says, in order for this sacrifice to obtain its effect (effectum habet), Apostolate of Prayer for Priests those for whom one prays must be “united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity.”

Pray the following prayer once a day, asking especially that God send us But he does not forbid praying for a non-Catholic. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon. more priests, and that He bless and protect the priests we whom we do have. All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a her- etic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen ef- Every priest who is included in the apostolate will say a Mass once a fect, “non habet effectum“. month for the faithful who pray for him, for the other priests included in the apostolate and for vocations. What final reflection can be taken from these discussions? It is not suitable to declare that “the Pope is not pope” (materially or formally) in the name O Jesus, Eternal High Priest, keep Thy priests within the shelter of Thy of a “theological opinion”. On this subject, we refer to an interesting article by Fr. Sacred Heart where none may harm them. Hurtaud that appeared in the Revue Thomiste. The author shows that Savonarola thought that Alexander VI had been elected with simony and, for this reason, he was not pope. Keep unstained their anointed hands which daily touch Thy Sacred Body. However, as the invalidity of a “simonious” election was only an opinion, Savonarola Keep pure their lips, daily purpled by Thy Precious Blood. asked for the convocation of a council where he brought proof that Alexander VI no long- Keep pure and unworldly their hearts, sealed with sublime mark of Thy er had the Catholic Faith, and it is in this way that it was certified that Alexander VI had glorious priesthood. lost supreme jurisdiction.

May they grow in love and confidence in Thee, and protect them from In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism? the contagion of the world. It is a position that has not been proven speculatively, and it is imprudent to hold it With the power of changing bread and wine, grant them also the power practically ... That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never entered onto this path, and he even of changing hearts. forbade the priests of his Society to profess sedevacantism. We should trust in his prudence and theological sense. Bless their labours with abundant fruit and grant them at the last the crown of eternal life. ————————————————————————————————————

Amen. [1] Argument of Fr. B.: 1. The Universal Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, alone or with the bish- ops united to him in the council, is infallible. – 2. Now, Paul VI, alone and in the council, exercised O Lord grant us priests, such a magisterium by all appearances; John Paul II, who carries on the work, also. – 3. By all ap- O Lord grant us holy priests, pearances, their teaching is therefore infallible. – 4. Now, a contradiction exists between the content O Lord grant us many holy priests of that which they teach or prescribe for the Universal Church, and the doctrine defined before in an irreformable manner. – 5. Given that proposal 1 is of faith, the conclusion is forced: the teaching of O Lord grant us many holy religious vocations. Vatican II promulgated and applied by Paul VI and confirmed by John Paul II is not the teaching of St. Pius X, pray for us. the Church, and neither Paul VI nor John Paul II can be recognized as popes.

[2] His acts are therefore devoid of all authority, magisterial as well as canonical; as a result, it can be seen how it is not impossible that the acts of Paul VI are contrary to the Catholic Faith and in- (As of 3rd August, 2014 ) compatible with pontifical authority, and that to affirm it is not on any way denying the prerogatives of a pope, in particular his infallibility and his universal and immediate jurisdiction. – However, this Priests: Faithful: proof says nothing about the person of Paul VI, because the intention that is denied him is not his District of Great Britain: 1 Great Britain: 20 Australia 3 personal intention (finis operantis, which remains out of the picture) but the objective intention that Canada: 22 Ireland 5 is usually imminent to his actions (finis operis). It therefore does not allow it to be affirmed that Scandinavia: 2 Singapore 3 Paul VI is personally outside the Catholic Church for reason of a sin of heresy or schism (note from 1 USA 2 the defender of the “thesis”).

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 16 Walsingham Pilgrimage 2014 Walsingham Pilgrimage 2014 Page 17

Catholic Resistance 2014 Walsingham Pilgrimage

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 16 Walsingham Pilgrimage 2014 Walsingham Pilgrimage 2014 Page 17

Catholic Resistance 2014 Walsingham Pilgrimage

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 18 Catechism on Sedevacantism Page 15

the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are A.M.D.G. known to and tested by the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio) (III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2). For, he says, in order for this sacrifice to obtain its effect (effectum habet), Apostolate of Prayer for Priests those for whom one prays must be “united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity.”

Pray the following prayer once a day, asking especially that God send us But he does not forbid praying for a non-Catholic. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon. more priests, and that He bless and protect the priests we whom we do have. All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a her- etic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen ef- Every priest who is included in the apostolate will say a Mass once a fect, “non habet effectum“. month for the faithful who pray for him, for the other priests included in the apostolate and for vocations. What final reflection can be taken from these discussions? It is not suitable to declare that “the Pope is not pope” (materially or formally) in the name O Jesus, Eternal High Priest, keep Thy priests within the shelter of Thy of a “theological opinion”. On this subject, we refer to an interesting article by Fr. Sacred Heart where none may harm them. Hurtaud that appeared in the Revue Thomiste. The author shows that Savonarola thought that Alexander VI had been elected with simony and, for this reason, he was not pope. Keep unstained their anointed hands which daily touch Thy Sacred Body. However, as the invalidity of a “simonious” election was only an opinion, Savonarola Keep pure their lips, daily purpled by Thy Precious Blood. asked for the convocation of a council where he brought proof that Alexander VI no long- Keep pure and unworldly their hearts, sealed with sublime mark of Thy er had the Catholic Faith, and it is in this way that it was certified that Alexander VI had glorious priesthood. lost supreme jurisdiction.

May they grow in love and confidence in Thee, and protect them from In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism? the contagion of the world. It is a position that has not been proven speculatively, and it is imprudent to hold it With the power of changing bread and wine, grant them also the power practically ... That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never entered onto this path, and he even of changing hearts. forbade the priests of his Society to profess sedevacantism. We should trust in his prudence and theological sense. Bless their labours with abundant fruit and grant them at the last the crown of eternal life. ————————————————————————————————————

Amen. [1] Argument of Fr. B.: 1. The Universal Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, alone or with the bish- ops united to him in the council, is infallible. – 2. Now, Paul VI, alone and in the council, exercised O Lord grant us priests, such a magisterium by all appearances; John Paul II, who carries on the work, also. – 3. By all ap- O Lord grant us holy priests, pearances, their teaching is therefore infallible. – 4. Now, a contradiction exists between the content O Lord grant us many holy priests of that which they teach or prescribe for the Universal Church, and the doctrine defined before in an irreformable manner. – 5. Given that proposal 1 is of faith, the conclusion is forced: the teaching of O Lord grant us many holy religious vocations. Vatican II promulgated and applied by Paul VI and confirmed by John Paul II is not the teaching of St. Pius X, pray for us. the Church, and neither Paul VI nor John Paul II can be recognized as popes.

[2] His acts are therefore devoid of all authority, magisterial as well as canonical; as a result, it can be seen how it is not impossible that the acts of Paul VI are contrary to the Catholic Faith and in- (As of 3rd August, 2014 ) compatible with pontifical authority, and that to affirm it is not on any way denying the prerogatives of a pope, in particular his infallibility and his universal and immediate jurisdiction. – However, this Priests: Faithful: proof says nothing about the person of Paul VI, because the intention that is denied him is not his District of Great Britain: 1 Great Britain: 20 Australia 3 personal intention (finis operantis, which remains out of the picture) but the objective intention that Canada: 22 Ireland 5 is usually imminent to his actions (finis operis). It therefore does not allow it to be affirmed that Scandinavia: 2 Singapore 3 Paul VI is personally outside the Catholic Church for reason of a sin of heresy or schism (note from Spain 1 USA 2 the defender of the “thesis”).

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 14 Catechism on Sedevacantism Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Page 19 for those who say that the pope materialiter has the power to constitute a hierarchy Long Live ‘Emperor Nullaparte’ ! materialiter – because it implies that the pope materialiter, devoid of authority, still has enough authority to change the laws on papal election. Fr. Francois Chazal

“Deliver us from evil,” our Lord has us saying so often, and so as to avoid a greater cascade What do you think of the arguments upon which this solution is based? of evils, we’re keeping the Pope, without having any part in his actions: This solution is not founded on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, 1. To keep our visibility, which is essential in the apostolate to express Catholic unity, John of St. Thomas, etc.) examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one, prior to because the Church is a visible society, in the world, thanks to a visible head in the Council, ever imagined this theory of “the absence of the usual intention to obtain the Rome; good of the Church” that would form an “obex” (obstacle) to receiving the “being-with- 2. To keep the principle of authority, in other words, to conserve pontifical authority Christ,” the form of the papacy. for the day when it will be restored, even if there is a certain eclipse at the moment. It plays on the ambiguity of the word “intention”. Proponents of the thesis recognize that 3. Negatively, because it is a question which is beyond us, about which authors are the intention must be in the person of the pope (“this intention is the ultimate disposition divided, which does not bring any incontestable resolution for everyone; and which of the subject to receive communication of the pontifical authority”), but at the same time will thus be resolved only at the end of the crisis. they affirm that it has nothing to do with the personal intention of the pope. We can agree 4. Because this option is supported by the sensus Catholicus of the faithful, who ask us with them when they say that recent popes harm the common good of the Church – and not to follow it. that is precisely what created the state of necessity – but it remains to be proven that such (I will only touch on the question of the loss of office of a heretical Pope, which is the crux is truly the personal intention of the popes, and then that such an intention deprives them of sedevacantism.) of authority. Everything, including the study done by the Dominicans (if one removes the sacramental, but The “Una Cum” Question I see that in the last issue of Sel de la Terre they have made some progress on this question) seems to indicate that if a heretical Pope were to lose office, it would only be hypothetically. Aren’t the sedevacantists right to refuse to name the pope at Mass in order to show It is not seemly for a Pope to be a heretic, so some say that, by divine right, he falls ipso fac- that they are not in communion with (“una cum“) a heretic (at least materially) and to... his heresies? The expression “una cum” in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that But they never affirm this hypothesis as certain, only probable, which means that the contra- he is “in communion” with the person of the pope and his erroneous ideas, but rather that ry can be proved. one wants to pray for the Church “and for” the pope. On the other hand, this hypothesis doesn’t get us anywhere, because even in divine right God declares what He decides to do, as in the case of Heli; or he doesn’t declare it, as in the case In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have of the High Priests from AD 33 to 70. It is up to Him. If we are evil, He tolerates evil leaders, been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the case of a bish- for the time necessary. op celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church “una cum […] me indigno servo tuo,” which does not mean that he prays “in communion with myself, your For Caiaphas, it’s wrong to attack Fr. Pfeiffer. Caiaphas is worse than everything and as he is unworthy servant” (which does not make sense!), but that he prays “and for myself, your of lower authority than a Pope, while being the Sovereign Pontiff of the Mosaic religion, we see that it would have been easier to remove him (even if nothing is difficult for God). unworthy servant.” But we see that God does not remove him, and what is more, confirms his successors too so What does St. Thomas Aquinas think of this? that they persecute the Church and fight against the truth, as St. Augustine says: God leaves St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, when he comments on the prayers of the the impious who have no intention of changing, for the required time, so as to try the just. De Mass (III, Q. 83, A. 4, corpus) equates “una cum” with the expression “et pro”: then the iure, Caiaphas is kaput. De facto, he has a role to play in the passion of Christ... Absolutely priest commemorates in silence [it is the beginning of the Canon] first those for whom the similar to Pope Francis. sacrifice is offered, that is, for the Universal Church, and for “those who constitute it in dignity” [the pope, the bishop, the king]; then for those in particular who offer this sacri- All the way along we see that Christ does not touch anything of the hierarchical order, but fice or for whom it is offered [the memento of the living]. attacks very, very clearly the problem which rots the Mosaic religion. We must follow this example. After Pentecost, the Apostles never bothered with getting rid of the gangsters in power. But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for her- etics? No, the argument of Caiaphas is very strong; taken directly from Scripture; and the patristic St. Thomas Aquinas does not prohibit praying for heretics, but merely observes that, in commentaries must be excellent on this subject.

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 20 Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Catechism on Sedevacantism Page 13 We men are always eager to do battle, and we wish that God would act like us, quickly, just truths to be believed or held in a firm and definitive manner. Conciliar teaching no long- like that: good riddance! For God, what counts is the revelation of the goodness or malice of er presents itself as “necessary for salvation” (this is logical, since those who profess it hearts, and for that there’s nothing like unfaithful superiors for ensuring that everyone has to think that it is possible to be saved even without the Catholic Faith). show his cards. Since it is not imposed with authority, this teaching is not covered by infallibility. The Once it is done, the Caiaphases get themselves thrown in the bin by God who intervenes same thing can be said of liturgical laws (the new mass; new canonizations…) and ca- suddenly, and they also risk the other great bin which is eternal hell. nonical laws (the new Canon Law…) set forth by these latest popes: they are not covered

The problem with sedevacantists is their obtuse side and their militant bitterness. They don’t by infallibility, although normally they should have been. want to listen. They come out with their chosen authors, particularly Bellarmine, and refuse to give attention to the differing theological opinions or theological qualifications of Cajetan, The Cassiciacum Thesis John of Thomas, Billot, Suarez, Builluart, Garrigou-Lagrange (de Verbo Incarnato, p232)... Can you explain what is meant by being pope “materialiter”? They dishonestly pass off the probable judgements of the authors who go in their direction as The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist absolutely certain conclusions, which I have been able to read directly in Tanquerey, Cor- in a visible manner (for she has received from Our Lord the promise that she will endure onata, Prummer. until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. And even though Bellarmine says that Cajetan supports a conclusion which is opposed to his own, they say that Cajetan corroborates sedevacantism. The partisans of the so-called “Cassiciacum Thesis” have come up with a subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the pa- They knowingly neglect to admit that half (or less) of those who think that a heretical Pope pal authority because there was an obstacle in him (heresy). He is pope materialiter, but would not be Pope, also think that it is an impossible hypothesis or only a hypothesis. not formaliter.

That’s exactly what Fr. Cekada does in his little work of 2006. It goes through and reviews all the favourable authors and it omits to tell us in what way they qualify their affirmations, and Can you detail the arguments of this “thesis”? above all it omits any contrary opinions. Why such a need for a cover up? Because you need Here are the arguments as summarized by a priest who professes them: to prove that putting the name of a heretic in the canon of the Mass is a sacrilege or that  The starting point is an induction: the acts of Paul VI (because it was he at that time something which is only an opinion is an absolutely irrefutable certainty for even the most who was reigning in Rome) contribute to the destruction of the Catholic religion and average Catholic. That resisting such evidence is a mortal sin against the Faith... etc. its replacement by the religion of man in the form of concealed Protestantism. From Let us take up Billuard again, quoted by the Dominicans: “According to the most common this comes the certitude that Paul VI does not have the usual intention of obtaining opinion, Christ, through a particular providence, for the common good and tranquillity of the the good / end of the Church, which is Jesus Christ plenum gratiæ et veritatis.

Church, continues to give jurisdiction to a Pontiff, even one who is manifestly heretical, until  The usual intention of obtaining the good of the Church is a necessary condition he be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.” (de Fide, V,III,3,2) (the ultimate disposition) for a subject elected pope to receive the communication of

The whole problem is there. Behind all this abundant reasoning all over the place, it has less pontifical authority with makes him to be with Jesus Christ and hold the role of His Vicar on Earth. to do with an act of reason than with emotions, based, as Fr. Cyprian (RIP) used to say, on the feeling of having been left orphans in the Faith by the cruel reigning authorities. Alas, yes, we  Consequently, Paul VI is devoid of all pontifical authority: he is not pope formaliter; have been left orphans, and some people take that very badly, which turns the debate to vine- he is not Vicar of Christ. In a word, he is not pope.[2] gar. We can understand them, but we need to know what to expect.  This necessitates the affirmation that if Paul VI is not pope formaliter, he yet re- Contrary to the liberal penchant, there is something noble and sad in this refusal of a father, mains pope materialiter, as a simple elected subject, seated on the Pontifical Seat, and that makes the debate so much the more difficult. They tell us: “Look what is going on in neither pope nor anti-pope.

Rome! How is that possible?” How can one not agree about what is going on? Armed with Does this solution resolve the difficulties of “pure” sedevacantism? this, they are carried away with this sadness, they allow themselves to be absorbed by it, alas. It does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism: how can the Church continue to That’s why one might think that in spite of their voluminous reasoning there is this sadness be visible? For some proponents of “the thesis”, there is no longer any hierarchy at all and this pain which prevents them from seeing clearly. When all’s said and done we can’t (“the nominations of cardinals and bishops are acts of pontifical jurisdiction, which is condemn them, contrary to Cardinal Ratzinger who said that they needed to all be laicised, precisely absent and which nothing can replace”). For others, the pope materialiter has whereas he is really the one who ought to be, for having created so many orphans power (how?) to constitute a hierarchy materialiter. But such a hierarchy, devoid of its in the Faith. “form,” is not the visible hierarchy of the Church (no more than the Orthodox hierarchy Then there is the question “And then?” Prummer says. Nobody, he says, has any idea how to is the hierarchy of the Church). Moreover, this theory sets off new difficulties – at least

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 12 Catechism on Sedevacantism Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Page 21 a bishop or pope. go about deposing him, or even how to declare him as such. (There is no way of proceeding The new ritual of episcopal consecration comes from a prayer found in ‘Apostolic because it is God who has to take charge, in my opinion).

Tradition’, a work apparently from St. Hippolytus and dating from the beginning of the The only one who goes into the details of what must be done after noting that the Pope is a third century. Even if this attribution is probable, it is not agreed upon by all; some think heretic, is Billuard, but he somehow doesn’t seem to be in favour with the sedevacantists, that it is an “anonymous compilation containing elements of different ages”. As for St. because his thesis supports the idea that the Pope would stay Pope. In addition, sede- Hippolytus, he is thought to have been an antipope for some time before reconciling with vacantists often feel obliged to work behind the scenes, a bit like the Jansenists of yester- Pope St. Pontian at the moment of their common martyrdom (in 235). It is from that year, and they sometimes use double talk. “I’m not a sedevacantist, but Francis is not the same work that Canon number 2 of the new mass issues. Pope” some of them say.

Yet, this prayer of the consecration is taken up again with a few variations in two orien- I have two bishops who were in my year at seminary, the good one is Bishop Fulham who tal rites, the Coptic rite used in Egypt and the Eastern Syrian rite, used notably by the had very strong sedevacantist sentiments. He was very honest and open about it and pre- Maronites. It was therefore adopted by post-conciliar reformers to manifest the unity ferred to leave the seminary, become a priest with the sedevacantists, then he left sede- between the traditions of the three great patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. vacantism the same way he entered it, loyally.

By reason of this closeness to two Catholic rites, it cannot be affirmed that Paul VI’s The other one is Bishop Neville who left in the year following his ordination, attached him- prayer is invalid. self to Bishop Sanborn who consecrated him, only to leave him again a little while later. I think he ought to have been a little bit more open instead of letting himself profit from the Isn’t it true that the new rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite that was de- excellent formation of the time then getting himself ordained before leaving us. We see here clared invalid by Leo XIII? the necessity of an oath, by which I am still bound, because quo ad substantiam, nothing has changed since John-Paul II. It is true that the rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite, but not to the rite con- demned by Leo XIII. The Anglican and Episcopalian churches also introduced a new Nevertheless, if we are able to sit down together and go through the theological authorities consecratory prayer, taken from St. Hippolytus, with the aim to have a rite acceptable to calmly, I think that the sede hypothesis is respectable. There is an objective intrusion, a for- Catholics, after the condemnation of the Anglican ordinations by Leo XIII. eign body which has installed itself and which has no right to be there. Francis is a heretic, and because of his heresy, everything that he commands is subject to caution, even good A Posteriori Arguments things that he might do, in the sense that the modernists use good to accomplish evil, as Archbishop Lefebvre says in his preface to “I Accuse the Council”.

Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their opinion in the errors The lame, wishy-washy refutations of sedevacantism haven’t stopped, liberals refuse even to of the Council and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar qualify Pope Francis as a heretic for fear of the bogeyman, and the sedevacantist are put on Church? the same level as schismatics whereas many of them save their souls. Their being mistaken Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have is perfectly understandable, that’s why we see some of them who are more reasonable like been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium (OUM), and con- the Bishop Pivarunas’s CMRI, Bishops Morello, McKenna or others... but not Sanborn, nor sequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on reli- the conclavists. I don’t know where or at what stage Fr. Abrahamovicz is. gious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.[1] Which leads us to the burning question: In that case, what collaboration with the reasonable In reality, if one accepted this reasoning, then it would be necessary to say that the whole sedevacantists? Catholic Church disappeared at that moment and that “the gates of hell had prevailed None. Just a cease-fire. We will take care of sedevacantists who call us, individually, but against her.”. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of all the often this comes at the cost of difficulties. But as they are neither schismatics nor heretics, bishops, of the whole teaching Church. nor excommunicated (contrary to what is claimed by those who attack them in such a mala- It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not droit way), it is a duty for us on condition that they do not disturb minds. Bishop Fellay still covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons ex- tolerates certain non-una-cum priests in the Society, and at this level even supports the Re- plained in the article on “the authority of the Council” that appeared in Le Sel de la terre sistance. Nonetheless, official collaboration with sedevacantism is impossible.

35 (winter 2000-2001). Why? Because the positions are incompatible, unfortunately. Contra factum non fit argu- mentum, the facts on the ground show that a chapel ends up splitting when it has a signifi- Can you summarize the essential parts of this argument? cant number of sedevacantists within its ranks. At the start it’s “We’re being prudent and The main reason for which conciliar teaching on religious liberty (for example) is not understanding!” but the project fails a little while later, for in the eyes of the sedevacantists covered by the OUM is that the conciliar magisterium does not present itself as teaching at best we are liberals, illogical, lukewarm or timid or less. Some of them go further than

that. www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 22 Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Catechism on Sedevacantism Page 11 We are Nullapartists pure and simple, they are Nullapartists of the “beyondist,” be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit “complicationist” sort who go beyond the simple declaration “We have nothing to do with abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head can- this new Rome,” to express a sentence of condemnation and demand, to varying degrees, not influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as adhesion to this condemnation. is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not re- ceive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.” I asked one of my faithful to put this question to Bishop Pivarunas. ‘Would you accept a seminarian who still believes that Francis is the Pope?’ His answer: “No, of course not!” It In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he works the same the other way around. can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-

We are keeping the Pope and we demand of our clergy a similar taking of position, under exist with heresy. oath if necessary (cf. the oath which Archbishop Lefebvre made for this topic) for the reasons given above. That is much more prudent provided one does not try to ‘Catholicise’ The Canonical Argument of the Heresy of the Pope the official church like Bishop Fellay. Nullaparte’s Waterloo was 14th July, 2012. And what about their canonical argument? Events prove that our position has the inconvenience of exposing us to the Roman machina- The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of tions, whereas the sedes are immune. The crisis of 2012 proves that now. We exaggerated Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost our position, wrapped ourselves up in it securely and we trapped ourselves in it, neglecting its legal force (even sedevacantist priests recognize it: “We cannot use the bull of Paul IV to consider that because of the situation in the Church, all positions have their own pitfalls, to prove that the Holy See is currently vacant, but only to prove the possibility that it can our ones being smaller perhaps, but just as capable of killing. happen…” (Fr. F. Ricossa, Solalitium 36, May-June 1994, p. 57-58, note 1). That which We took a good beating because we indulged ourselves. Let us profit from this beating, remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, consequently, it cannot be because beatings of this nature are very educational. But I am not going to ask for another made to say more than the theological argument already examined. one by getting myself trapped in the swirling waters of sedevacantism. Normally a good beating is enough to resolve a problem. Yet the code in the Gasparri edition (C.I.C. cum fontium annotatione, Romæ) refers It needs to be explained to some that the faithful are still in shock from the blood-bath of in a note to the Cum ex apostolatus constitution. 2012. We can’t ask them to swallow lessons on sedevacantism, or to the effect that there is These notes of the code in the Gasparri edition mention the sources of the code. But this a certain liberty on this subject... with all the other worries which assail us. Common sense. does not mean that all of its sources are still in force!

Amongst other things, we cannot present our position as a question of Faith, but as a simple The 1917 code says in Canon 6 (5) that the punishments that are not mentioned in the application of nulla pars cum haereticis, a probabilior solution, just and prudent, in the code are abrogated. Now, the Cum ex apostolatus constitution was a penal law, because it words of Archbishop Lefebvre. inflicted the revocation of an ecclesiastical office, and the punishments that it prescribed

Otherwise we fall into the same trap as the Sanbornists and others, who have turned this were not picked up again in the code. tough question into a real religion and expend considerable energy on a thesis which There is more: even before the new code, St. Pius X had already abrogated Paul IV’s doesn’t hold (Cassiciacum), rather like Fr. Basil of Le Barroux, with his 3,000 pages on constitution by his consitition Vacante sede apostolic of December 25, 1904 (§ 29), which religious liberty. Archbishop Lefebvre was always on his guard against exaggerating, and declares null any censure able to remove the active or passive voice from the cardinals of that only strengthened the power of his choice which is to leave the resolution of this prob- the conclave. And Canon 160 of the code declares that the election of the pope is reg- lem to the competent authorities when they have refound and returned to Tradition. ulated only by this constitution of St. Pius X. The same way the Cekadians and Sanbornists refuse like donkeys (they remain extremely The constitution of Pius XII of December 8, 1945, Vacantis apostolicæ sedis, which intelligent, but I am speaking here of their stubbornness, I can’t think of a better simile, replaced that of St. Pius X, takes the same position on this subject: “No cardinal may be sorry), I would say, to consider that some renowned theologians disagree with their excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the sovereign pontiff, under position, we are tempted to rob ourselves by refusing to take the whole ensemble of the- no pretext nor for cause of excommunication, suspension, interdiction or other ological authorities as our guide. ecclesiastical impediment. We lift the effect of these censures for this type of election Let us not commit the same error by refusing a priori to consider the argument put forth by only, keeping them in force for everything else” (n. 34). those authors who say that a heretical Pope loses his office ipso facto, by divine right (even if, invariably, they give this opinion sententia probabili). It is dangerous to lose the notion The Argument of the Nullity of the Pope’s Episcopal Consecration that the Church is horrified by a heretical Pope; that a heretical Pope is a delinquent in the Faith of the worst kind, a real mass-murderer of souls, as these numberless souls who fall Some sedevacantists argue that the current pope was consecrated bishop with the into hell, and who can truly say “Bishop, it by you that I die” eternally, give witness. new rite invented by Paul VI, a rite that they deem invalid; thus, Benedict XVI is not

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 10 Catechism on Sedevacantism Chazal - Emperor Nullaparte Page 23 Horror of heresy, and of the heretic as the carrier, is an indispensable protection.

Sedevacantist Arguments The same goes for Cum ex apostolatus. Why be afraid of looking at this document face to

On what arguments do sedevacantists base their theories? face, whereas it ought to be integrated into our doctrinal position? Like the Code of Canon They have a priori arguments and a posterior arguments. A priori, they say, the pope Law (Canon 188.4), Cum Ex does not say how one goes about deposing the Pope, which is being a heretic, he cannot be a true pope, which can be proven in a theological manner (a too difficult a question, even for Paul IV... who does not answer it; and we’re not going to heretic cannot be the head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore…) or in a be getting any help from the clergy of Rome... etc. The Pope is exempt from penal procedures, he is judged by no one. If he falls, it is by divine right. legal manner (Church laws invalidate the election of a heretic, but Cardinal Wojtyla – or Ratzinger – was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore …). Cum Ex was abrogated by Pius X in the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25th A priori, they say again, the current “pope” was consecrated bishop with the new episcopal December, 1904, #29. But the dogmatic aspect of Cum Ex is unavoidable, and we must consecration rite invented by Paul VI, so he is not a bishop. But to be Pope, one must be comply with it. It is not simply a question of good faith in our debate with the sedevacantist, Bishop of Rome. Therefore … it is a question of submission to the Magisterium, which asks us to keep our distance from heretics, something which Menzingrad is not doing, obviously. A posteriori, they say finally, we note that the actions taken by the popes are bad or erroneous, while they should be covered by infallibility. Therefore, these popes are not Finally, we have to be prepared for the worst: they are going to demolish the papacy itself. really popes. The papers of the Alta Vendita date back two centuries. The Protocols speak of a Papacy emptied of all substance. The Revolution never stops. When the heel of the Blessed Virgin The Theological Argument of the Heresy of the Pope crushes its head it will stop; but not before. Francis began by renouncing the title of Pope, he multiplies his antics as much as he can. The Tiara bothered Benedict XVI. John-Paul II But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate? spoke clearly in 1995 or 1996 of the necessity of rethinking the petrine ministry and Paul VI St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who formally and manifestly became a heretic did more of that sort of thing than all his successors. They no longer want a monarchical would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be institution of the Church. It is still there, but its days are numbered. Once it has been liqui- a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy dated beyond any possible doubt, what are we planning to do? It is prudent to prepare would have to be manifest in the eyes of all. But though the popes since Paul VI, and espe- ourselves in advance, above all when the problem is at the gates. We’re going to be finding cially John Paul II, make heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy rather of- Pope-Presidents, democratically elected by a college enlarged to who knows how many ten, it cannot easily be shown that they are aware of rejecting a dogma of the Church. And Cardinals. I even think they will be inviting bishops to vote, or even non-Catholic as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was “prelates”, the Anglicans for example. They are going to keep the superstar side of things, Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct. but continue to empty the papcy of its substance, everything will be clownified. They’ll develop collegiality and national churches, which will be increasingly dissenting or If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he schismatic with regard to Rome, even ones which will soon be saturated with LGBT, be- then conclude that he is no longer pope? cause Rome will never be sufficiently left-wing for the Revolution.

No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the I think we have to watch the sun setting. To the extent that, and as gradually as, they make “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can it disappear, we recognise that disappearance. Thus to the question which is asked so often continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the in the mouths of those who join us, “Are you with the man in white, over there in Rome?” only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a we will reply “Yes, or at least what’s left of him.” “I wish there were more, because Catho- declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy. lic as I am I want to attach myself as much as possible to the visible unity. But over in

“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the Rome they’re busy shrinking everything, don’t you agree?” “We don’t like these attacks on common good and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an the visible, hierarchical unity of the Church. We neither provoked them nor sought them, like the modernists and the sedevacantists. They come to us.” even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a mani- fest heretic by the Church” (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2). Once the Papacy is totally demolished, which will not please God, we will prefer not to say: “You see! I was right!” We will lament, that is all, and we will continue our road with Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion. Eternal Rome.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or “Deus qui diligis animas” head? In Iesu et Maria Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still Francois Chazal+

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 24 Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Cathechism on Sedevacantism Page 9

could fail to keep, at one time or another, their pastoral role, putting in more or less The Fall and Drift of Le Barroux serious, more or less direct danger the unity of the faith in the Holy Church. But

[Editor’s note - the following is an extract from an article by Père Bruno O.S.B in the this attitude explains itself for essentially moral reasons. None of these popes were spring 2014 issue of the Le Sel de La Terre, published by the Dominicans of Avrillé. In the attached to error by intellectual conviction. They all fell short without a fundamen- article, Père Bruno recounts Dom Gérard’s signing of an agreement with Rome and then tally intellectual adherence to error, and this came sometimes from a lack of cour- explains three factors that changed the way of thinking of the monks in that community. age in the middle of persecution, such as with Liberius, sometimes from a certain These factors are: 1) the internal influence: the role of the superior; 2) the external influ- naiveté and an excess of mediation, as with Honorius and Vigilius, sometimes even ence: contamination; and 3) the cessation of combat. The extract below deals with the first from a sort of theological intemperance as with John XXII. The most serious atti- of these three. tude of all, that of Pope Honorius, warranted the favens hæresimcensure. It did not cause this pope to be condemned as a formal heretic […] The second extract is taken from the well known interview of Archbishop Lefebvre with Fideliter, in 1988, in which he comments on the defection of Le Barroux to modern Rome.] “But in view of these isolated cases, the consistent attitude of all the popes since the Second Vatican Council has an entirely different appearance. The daily preach- How did the Community Change? ing of these sovereign pontiffs is constantly spotted with false principles of reli- gious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality. These are grave errors, and they are the 1)The internal influence: the role of the superior th consequence of this “heresy of the 20 century,” to use the expression of Madiran, The example of le Barroux shows that when a superior wants to join with Rome, he can the heresy of neo-modernism. Constant and repeated errors, from John XXIII and prepare his subjects in order to lead them in this direction, even if many are at first opposed Paul VI to Benedict XVI, errors that are not the consequence of passing weakness to it (which was the case at le Barroux). He can, in different ways, and more or less con- or naiveté, but, on the contrary, are the expression of a fundamental adherence of sciously, condition his community. This explains why the monastery, as a whole, followed the intelligence, the affirmation of an informed conviction. This is why such a situ- Dom Gerard. ation is really and truly without precedent.” – cf. Fr. Gleize, Vu de Haut14 (2008), p.95-96.  The superior filters information (I spoke of periodicals suppressed at the community table, and replaced by others) and presents news in his own way. Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?

 The superior uses a double language in order to please everyone. He adapts to the No, far from it. To use the terms of a sedevacantist: the “sedevacantists” are scattered along at least six dividing lines: person he is speaking to or to his audience: he is hard with the hard, and soft with the soft. If you manifest your distress to him, he replies: “I understand you, I am vigilant.” If, on the contrary, you find that things are not progressing fast enough:  Total vacancy / formal vacancy and material permanence (the “Cassiciacum “Be patient, we are advancing, but we must go slowly.” This double language can Thesis”); sometimes go as far as lying.  Acceptance of consecrations without apostolic mandate / refusal of these con- secrations;  The superior endeavours to reassure those who are worried. Dom Gerard often told  Rejection out of the Church of all those who are not sedevacantists / refusal of me: “The community is in good health, we are strong, so don’t be worried!” I re- such a rejection; plied that the community was really not in good health, and I gave him some exam-  Ecclesiastical laws keep their imperative force / the laws are stripped of exec- ples. utory force;  The superior insists on the obligation of trusting him: relations with Rome come  Acceptance of the principle of a conclave outside of the Roman line / refusal of under the prudential domain, we must therefore trust authority. And if we are not such a possibility; completely in agreement, we submit. Trust and obedience…  Vacancy of authority has lasted since the death of Pius XII / since ‘Pacem in terries’ / since the death of John XXIII / since the proclamation of religious  The superior often reminds of the duty of sanctifying oneself, which is obviously of liberty (December 7, 1965) (and our sedevacantist forgot yet one more theory: the utmost importance. But for him, it is a question of sanctifying oneself without since the replacement of Paul VI by a double). taking into account the crisis; whereas we must sanctify ourselves in the crisis and

by the crisis. The crisis is an occasion of sanctifying ourselves: at first sight, it is an This gives us, unless I am mistaken, 160 possibilities. obstacle, but God changes obstacles into means. In a monastery, in a period of crisis, we cannot therefore content ourselves with living the religious life well, as if there But that which is common among all sedevacantists is that they think that one must not was no crisis. pray for the pope in public.

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 8 Catechism on Sedevacantism Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Page 25 mean, for all that, that I am absolutely sure to be correct in the position that I take; I am  The superior changes the problems. “There are so many things going wrong in placing myself there in a prudential manner. It is rather under this area that I place my- France, in the world, in the Church, that we must not dwell on petty quarrels over self, more than under the theological domain, purely theoretical. I think that God asks us details. We have to expand our horizons.” to have clear ideas not only from a purely theoretical and theological viewpoint, but also  The superior benefits (consciously or not) of the fact that his subjects trust him and in practice, when things are very difficult and delicate, and to act with a certain wisdom, are attached to his person. At le Barroux, many could not imagine that Dom Gerard a certain prudence that can seem a bit in contradiction with certain principles, not to be could one day go astray. This is an opportunity to stress that we must be committed of pure logic” (5-10-1978). “As long as I do not have the proof that the pope is not the to principles more than to people. Why? Because people can change, whereas prin- pope, well, I presume that he is, that he is pope. I do not say that there cannot be argu- ciples do not change. We can recover from the failures, even serious failures, of a ments that can put one in doubt in certain cases. But one must have the proof that it is person, we do not recover from the abandonment of principles. It was Mgr. Freppel not only a doubt, a valid doubt. If the argument is doubtful, we do not have the right to who said, “We never recover from the sacrifice of principles.” take enormous consequences away from it!” (16-1-1979). “The Priestly Society does not accept [this] solution, but, based on the history of the Church and the doctrine of the  The superior makes those who resist the orientation that he endeavours to impose theologians, thinks that the pope can promote the ruin of the Church by choosing bad feel guilty about their position; he reproaches them for disturbing the community, collaborators and letting them act, signing decrees that do not use his infallibility, some- as if the trouble wasn’t the result of the actions and words of the authority, but of times even by his own admission, and that cause considerable damage to the Church. those who are worried about it, and rightly so.

Nothing is more dangerous for the Church than liberal popes, who are in continual con-  The superior repeats that we have to keep the sense of the Church: “Beware of the tradiction” (13-9-1982). “In practice, this does not have influence on our practical con- dangers of schism and of sedevacantism!” (A spectre that is raised frequently to- duct, because we firmly and courageously reject all that is against the faith, without day…). knowing from whence it comes, without knowing who is guilty” (5-10-1978). How did the community of le Barroux react? For most, trust was necessary because Dom What are we talking about? Gerard was the leader, thus he had the graces of state. If, despite everything, we asked questions, if we did not agree, we had to in any case not propagate a bad spirit, so as to What is sedevacantism? preserve the unity of the community. Unity became more important than truth. But when Sedevacantism is the opinion of those who think that the most recent popes, since Se- you put unity above truth, you lose both: you lose the truth, and you also lose unity. This cond Vatican Council, are not true popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occu- is what happened at le Barroux. pied, which is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante. One of the fathers of the monastery, who had important responsibilities, was personally Where does this opinion come from? opposed to concelebrating in the new rite, but he especially did not want to criticize his This opinion was caused by the very grave crisis which has been occurring in the Church superior, Dom Gerard. He thus held a good principle: no compromise with the new mass; since the last Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called “the third world but he remained attached to a person who contradicted this principle. He finally gave in war.” and concelebrated, when he had vowed that he would never do it. He accepted at least once. This was the case with most of them. I think two or three of them never did it and The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or would never want to. That being said, not concelebrating the new mass oneself was not allow to be propagated very serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liber- enough: one also had to protest against those who did it. This was one of the reasons for ty, collegiality, etc. my departure: I could not bear knowing that my fellow brothers participated in con- The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and celebrations, particularly a father ordained at the same time as me in Écône on June 27, consequently they consider them not to be “real popes”. 1986, who did it quite often. Not only was it out of the question that I use the new rite (they would never have dared to ask it of me), but I could not stay in a community where Could you briefly explain what the crisis in the Church consists of? it had become a normal thing. I will do this by quoting Fr. Gleize: In this type of situation, the superior does not necessarily ask you to be in agreement on “That which speaks the most is all the speeches published in the Osservatore Ro- all points with him; he simply asks you to be quiet: “If you have any reluctance or reser- mano that constantly reaffirm the principle of religious liberty, state secularism vations, keep quiet, do not speak of them.” If, in effect, you keep quiet, that allows him to and ecumenism, a principle that is in formal contradiction with the constant and continue to advance in his direction, without any obstacles. And he who agrees to keep unanimous teaching of the pontifical magisterium from before Vatican II. […] quiet, by keeping quiet, and by not expressing his convictions, slowly ends up losing “In the past, it was possible that some popes were not equal to their mission. They them. He one day accepts to take a first step, and we know that the first step is the hardest. www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 26 Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Page 7 [ N.B - Written by one of the Avrillé Dominicans, this article can be read in its original French at: Archbishop Lefebvre on Le Barroux http://filiimariae.over-blog.com/2014/06/petit-catechisme-du-sedevacantisme.html or at: http://www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes Extract taken from interview with Fideliter, issue 66, (November - December 1988) or in English at: www.ecclesiamilitans.com, whom we thank for bringing it to our attention.]

Archbishop Lefebvre: ...I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all Little Catechism on Sedevacantism the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura o of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi By Dominicus – Le Sel de la Terre N 79, winter 2011-2012 Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and A first edition of this little catechism appeared in Le Sel de la terre 36. This second edi- their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist tion, revised and noticeably enhanced, takes into account the debates and objections raised Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus by the first edition. Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction Introduction: between Scylla and Charybdis

of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, In the straits of Messina, between Sicily and Italy, there are two formidable reefs: Scylla your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” and Charybdis. It is important, when crossing, to avoid both reefs. Many imprudent or unskilled navigators, wanting to avoid one, were shipwrecked on the other: they fell from Thus, the positions will be clear. Scylla to Charybdis. The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the tradi- Currently, facing the crisis in the Church, there are two errors to avoid: modernism tional Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear. (which, little by little, makes us lose the faith) and sedevacantism (which leans toward This is what Dom Gérard did not see, and what confused him. Dom Gérard has always schism). If we want to remain Catholic, we must pass between heresy and schism, be- seen the liturgy and the monastic life, but he does not clearly see the theological problems tween Scylla and Charybdis. of the Council, especially Religious Liberty. In this “Short Catechism”, we study one of the two reefs. But the other must not be forgot- He does not see the malice of these errors. He was never too much worried about this. ten. Under pretext of avoiding the dangers of sedevacantism, the dangers of modernism What touched him was the liturgical reform and the reform of the Benedictine monaster- disseminated by the conciliar Church must not be minimized. ies. He left Tournay, saying, “I cannot accept this.” The Position of Archbishop Lefebvre Then, he founded a community of monks with the liturgy and with a Benedictine spirit. The position that we are going to put forward is that of Archbishop Lefebvre and that Very well, wonderful. But he did not appreciate enough that these reforms which led him which, at Avrillé, we have always defended. Here is a short summary: to leave his monastery were the consequences of errors in the Council itself. 1) Abp. Lefebvre publicly asked himself the question: “We find ourselves truly before an As long as they grant him what he wanted—this monastic spirit and the traditional excessively grave dilemma that, I think, has never arisen in the Church. That he who is liturgy—he has what he wants and is indifferent to the rest. But he has fallen into a snare: seated on the Throne of Peter participates in religions of false gods, I do not think that this the others have given up nothing of their false principles. has ever occurred in the entire history of the Church (Easter 1986). If someone says that It is sad because there are around sixty monks, twenty priests, and thirty nuns. There are the pope is an apostate, a heretic, a schismatic, according to the probable opinion of the nearly one hundred youth there, bewildered, whose families are worried or even divided. theologians (if it were true), the pope would no longer be pope and, consequently, we It is a disaster. would be in the “Sede Vacante” situation. It is an opinion; I do not say that it cannot have

some arguments in its favor” (18-3-1977). “It is not impossible that this hypothesis will Interviewer: The nuns of the monastery Notre Dame de l’Annonciation remain very one day be confirmed by the Church, for it has some serious arguments. Many indeed are much attached to you. the acts of Paul VI that, accomplished by a bishop or a theologian twenty years ago,

would have been condemned as suspect of heresy, favoring heresy” (24-2-1977). Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, indeed. They came to make protestations of their affection... 2) However, after reflection, he preferred the opposite solution: “But I do not think that it However, I do not seek this affection, but rather that they remain attached to Tradition. is the solution that we should take, that we should follow. For the moment, I personally Are they willing to submit to a modernist authority? Here, indeed, is the question. If need- think that it would be a mistake to follow this hypothesis” (18-3-1977). “But this does not ed they must separate themselves from Dom Gérard to keep the Faith and Tradition.

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 6 Mass Centres Fall & Drift of Le Barroux Page 27 Resistance Mass Centres At least the monastery in Brazil [Dom Tomás Aquinas’s Monastery of Santa Cruz] refused to follow Dom Gérard and that is an important point.

London: Kent: I believe that what has contributed to the loss of Dom Gérard was his desire to open to Drake House Queen of Martyrs House those who are not with us and who would profit from following Tradition. This was the 44 St. George’s Road, 17 West Cliff Road theme of what he wrote in his letter to the Friends of the Monastery two years after his Wimbledon Broadstairs arrival at Le Barroux. He was saying, “We will strive not to have this critical, sterile, nega- tive attitude. We will strive to open our doors to all those who, though they might not have London SW19 4EF Kent CT10 1PU our ideas, would love the liturgy, so that they too may benefit from the monastic life.”

Liverpool: Grantham: From that period, I was worried, considering this as a dangerous operation. It was the The Liner Hotel (contact us for details) opening of the Church to the world, and one must acknowledge that it was the world that Lord Nelson Street converted the Church. Dom Gérard let himself be contaminated by the milieu which he welcomed in his monastery. Rome may be proud to have won a big battle and to have hit Liverpool in the right place. It is sad.... L3 5QB

Glasgow: The Cambuslang Institute 37 Greenlees Road,

Cambuslang St. Augustine on Sedition

Lanarkshire G72 8JE “Often, too, Divine Providence permits even good

To see the dates & times of Mass and Holy Hour, please check the website : men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by www.therecusant.com/resistance-mass-centres the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the or contact us at: [email protected] sake of the peace of the Church, they patiently

endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties Resist Menzingen’s Modernism! in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men Keep the Fight for the Faith going into the future! how God is to be served with a true disposition and

with great and sincere charity. The intention of such Thankyou for supporting men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or “The Recusant Mass Fund” because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their P.O. Box 423, return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those Deal, responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form Kent CT14 4BF no separate sects of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their England testimony the Faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church.

[email protected] These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So Divine Providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people.” Account Name - The Recusant Mass Fund Sort code - 60-04-27 Branch - Canterbury Account no. - 91178258 (St. Augustine, Of True Religion, 6,11)

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 28 SSPX Watch Editorial Page 5 along” will not help matters. If there are those who see sedevacantism as the issue, or at any Philippines: rate as more important than following what we received from Archbishop Lefebvre, then so More Denial of Sacraments Threatened! be it. We believe them to be mistaken, but never mind: let them go their way, and we shall go ours.

We sincerely hope, for that reason, that the French priests get their act together and decide that what they stand for is the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre, not just being against Men- zingen. If the issue is settled sooner, there will be less potential harm, and less time lost. And what is more, it will help dispel any lingering notions amongst those of us who are not French that the French seem to regard themselves as special, not required to do the dirty work of others like Fr. Pfeiffer (the “cowboy” ha ha!) or Fr. Chazal (“the American!”), and the suspicion that a misplaced national pride is in part what has been holding them back!

Here is a little more good news to finish on, lest I be accused of being a prophet of gloom. The meeting at Avrillé chose Fr. Roland de Merode to coordinate the Resistance in France, which is good news indeed. Although we know him only very little, he does seem a sensible and an honourable man, and he is moreover very widely respected and a man with large ex- perience going back some 30 years as an SSPX priest, most of that time spent working out- side of France (in Albania, for example). He is also an English speaker who takes an interest in what goes on elsewhere in the world. The other piece of good news is that Fr. Picot, who was ordained in 2010 and is the youngest priest so far to join the Resistance, is going to join Fr. Chazal in the ‘AustrAsian’ apostolate. At the time of writing, it looks as though he will be going to help out in Australia.

A New Resource At the time of writing, a new booklet entitled “Primary Sources for Studying the Crisis in the SSPX,” is being printed. It is designed as a collection into one place, in English, of all the documents from 2012 relating to the SSPX and Rome. A conscious decision was taken to include no commentary or interpolation, thus making the booklet entirely neutral and allow- ing it to be used by you, the reader, as a simple resource regarding the crisis in the SSPX. We intend, in addition, to send it to a large number of SSPX priests. Even though this will involve a certain amount of expense, we offer it free and without charge, confident that your generosity will once again enable us to defray our costs. A time is surely coming soon when there will be almost nobody left, priests or faithful, who are willing and able to listen or to learn, and a lot of ears have been stopped-up and hearts hardened even in the last year, hence the importance of us making one last effort now, before it becomes too late. Many thanks in advance for your generosity.

Finally, permit me to wish all our readers, friend and foe alike, a blessed Feast of the Assumption.

- The Editor

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 4 Editorial SSPX Watch Page 29 and offered as a serious explanation, with a straight face. Can anyone reproach the Resistance with such behaviour? Is anyone in any doubt what we stand for? When Fr. Pfeiffer comes to SSPX Watch! town for the first time, is there anyone, friend or foe alike, who can claim that they don’t British/Irish (!?) District Movements: - Fr. Walliez moves in. Is the erstwhile know what his “agenda” or thinking is? This behaviour, it seems to us, is not in the least hon- District Superior of “Be-ne-lux” being groomed to become District Superior ourable. The result, it goes without saying, can hardly be considered a good fruit either. The over here? Or is it that he being punished with demotion (not for disloyalty, visible damage is the splitting of a Resistance chapel which will occur as a result. The invisi- no, no: for getting caught!)..? Or is he simply getting out before the civil law- ble damage is the wasted of time and effort which could have been so much more productive- suit filed by Fr. Pinaud catches him up (after all, identity theft and email ly spent than attempting to convert resistance faithful to sedevacantism (which even many hacking are against the law over there)...? sedevacantist priests will admit, is not something essential!).

But back to France. Firstly the two French priests mentioned above were amongst those at the SSPX Movements Worldwide: - We won’t bore you with the whole list. It is mostly meeting at Avrillé, and so far we are not aware of any distinctions being made in the found- a circular movement with district Superiors leaving one district to go to another, thus ing of the ‘Society of Marcel Lefebvre’ regarding the question of sedevacantism. Time will of giving the impression of change whilst in reality maintaining the same faces at the course tell, but in our humble opinion, this is a mistake. Better an amicable parting of the General Chapter table, men whose loyalty has been proved at such great cost. (E.g. Fr. ways now than a bitter split later on, or worse, a growing number of priests who say that Stehlin replaces Fr. Couture, who replaces Fr. Wegner, who replaces Rostand...) Note- whilst they are not sedevacantist, they don't put the Pope’s name in the Canon; that they don't worthy perhaps is Fr. Rostand’s transfer (promotion?) to Menzingen as Commissar of put his name in the Canon because they are sedevacantist, but don’t worry, they won’t preach Propaganda “Communication,” a post which is being newly invented specially for him! about it; that they will occasionally perhaps mention it in the sermon, but won’t try to convert anyone to it; that they have to try to convert as many as possible to it and that they cannot Fr. Faure officially “punished” with letter of monition: - Fr. Faure recently understand how illogical, weak, wimpy and closet-modernist are all their colleagues who do received a letter from Fr. Christian “The-Jews-did-not-commit-Deicide” not share their sedevacantism; that sedevacantism is the single most important issue for any Bouchacourt, the soon-to-be District Superior of France, demanding that Catholic alive today, and furthermore you can’t attend any non-sedevacantist Mass, nor even he cease priestly functions immediately and report to a SSPX retreat a Mass of a sedevacantist with whom I disagree... (that last stage of the cancer is the most house, there to await further punishment. ...But just a advanced, a prelude to insanity usually found only in America). moment! Fr. Faure has been running around denouncing A “denier” of a Menzingen and doing everything within his power to build As Fr. Chazal rightly points out elsewhere in this issue, whilst there can be an amicable cease different kind...! up the Resistance since the Resistance began! The question -fire with some of the more reasonable sedevacantists, nevertheless to work together as if is, why are they punishing him only now? Why has it taken two years? Is there are no differences between us smacks of modern “ecumenism,” in seeking as it does to it because it is slightly embarrassing to tell one of the most trusted right- Abp Lefebvre with ignore at least one important thing which divides us and paper over the cracks. One thing hand men of Archbishop Lefebvre, the man who founded the Mexican Fr. Faure in 1976 ought to be crystal clear: the Resistance stands or falls on its fidelity to Tradition as handed District, who founded La Reja seminary and who was selected to become down to us by Archbishop Lefebvre. If we oppose Menzingen and denounce Bishop Fellay, a bishop in 1988, that he has been very naughty and must say sorry to poor Bishop Fel- we do so on a sound footing precisely because he is the one who has invented something lay? Or is it that punishing a man as respected as Fr. Faure would have been counter- new, he is the one who has deviated from the path of the founder. If a priest or layman, productive, and that only now does Menzingen calculate that it has less to lose? departs the SSPX for any other reason, to pursue his own ideas, then that is something differ- But... Menzingen?! Act in a cynical, calculating way?! No, surely that cannot be! ent to what he has received from Archbishop Lefebvre, and thus he has only himself and his Here are Fr. Faure’s thoughts in his own words: own merit on which to stand. No, we did not resist the novelty of Menzingen only to suc- Dear Friends: cumb to another novelty of our own making. The moment we see the Resistance as a “loose federation” of “differing opinions”, the Resistance ceases to exist positively, because it does Thank you for your messages and prayers. not stand for anything positively, only negatively, being merely a collection of people with a He who is silent accepts. Non possumus! I wish to have no part (“nullam partem”) with common enemy. We cannot be defined only by what we are against, and what we are for is those who are now handing over the work of Archbishop Lefebvre to the modernists Tradition as handed down to us by the Archbishop, it is the line of the Archbishop, which who are occupying Rome until the time appointed by God to destroy them and liberate does not include sedevacantism. We did not refuse the new position of Menzingen only to the Church of the Father of lies, he who has a double-tongue like a snake, which is a adopt another new position of our own making. good image of those who use words with a double meaning, “ambiguity,” which is used in such a “subtle” and treacherous way by someone who you know well and his friends.

There will of course be those who disagree and of course I am giving my opinion - that is May God Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, Keeper of the Faith, keep us from the what Editorials are for! But I have a very strong feeling that this is an issue which is not greatest sin against the Faith. going to go away any time soon, and hiding from it or pretending that we can “all just get Father Faure

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 30 SSPX Watch Editorial Page 3 Rosary Crusade - “Tractor Production Up Again! For the fifth year running!” distraction from the line of Archbishop Lefebvre which he intends to follow faithfully. The Far be it from us (or anyone!) to even hint at creative accounting (wasn’t Bishop other priests (with the possible exception of Fr. Sauer, who is fairly advanced in age) are all Fellay the Bursar General for many years?) But going by the official totals turned in, in the to varying degrees sedevacantist. The most “Hard-line” and “dogmatic” of them gave over a majority of countries (two thirds) the numbers (monthly average) have noticeably fallen whole issue of his chapel’s little newsletter to an article attacking what he called the since last time (2012) (The picture is even worse if one compares the figures with those of “Erroneous Declaration” of 1974. If only Archbishop Lefebvre had had the wisdom of this the last-but-one crusade in 2010). And that, even after all the shameless ecu-Trad appeals to one sedevacantist priest, he might have seen the error of his ways, since after all, sede- get as many Ecclesia Dei people as possible to participate, and the fact that at least four vacantism is the only truth which matters and outside of it error and downfall are inevita- different sets of intentions were being prayed in different parts of the world! ble. Incidentally, that little chapel for which the newsletter is written is the only place where Several questions remain: When will the curse of the Rosary Crusade fall? What this priest says Mass. form will it take? And when will Fr. Morgan (and many others) have the courage and Nonetheless, with the faithful in that part of the world we thank God that there is one priest integrity to admit that these rosary crusades have been used in a way that is grossly in the form of Fr. Fuchs who follows the path of Archbishop Lefebvre conscientiously, who offensive to heaven and that the real “official” intentions of this last one were so deeply is determined to alter nothing of what he has received from him and who will not allow him- unsound that no Catholic should have been encouraged to participate in them? In the British self to indulge his own fancies or proclivities at the expense of the faithful or use his depar- District newsletter we observe the following sleight of hand: ture from the SSPX as an excuse to make further uncalled-for changes. Is it a coincidence “Rosary Crusade that this one priest who will not entertain sedevacantism appears to be accomplishing more Our official crusade, which lasted from January 1st-June 8th 2014 has so far raised 45,553 than the others combined? Rosaries from this country. Any late ‘returns’ may still be sent to Saint George’s House to be I ought to add a small note here, to anticipate a possible objection. It is true, there are some passed on to Menzingen towards the grand total. In any event we need to continue praying, mak- Resistance priests who have only one chapel. These are, for the most part, priests who were ing sacrifices and working for the return of the Church to Tradition, for the conversion of Rome, independent ‘friends of the SSPX’ from long before the crisis came to the fore. They already and for the Consecration and conversion of Russia through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” have their established chapel to which they feel tied, in one way or another. This is slightly Indeed we do need to. But what has that to do with “our official Rosary Crusade,” whose different to a priest who is newly thrown out, the first Resistance priest in his country, is intentions were pointedly not “for the conversion of Rome” or even “for the return of the starting with nothing, and who rather than travelling long distances to answer the call of the Church to Tradition”, but rather, “for return of Tradition [that’s us!] into the Church”..? If we faithful prefers to sit at home writing clever articles. Superficially there might appear some are now too embarrassed to admit what this last Rosary Crusade was actually for, would it similarity, but the spirit is different, and that, it seems to me, is what makes the crucial differ- not be better simply to avoid any mention of it, rather than encouraging people to join in and ence. There is a different spirit among priests who become convinced sedevacantists, and one then pretending afterwards that what they were really praying for was something different? of the ways in which this seems to make itself visible is a lessening of the apostolic spirit. Perhaps it is a question of their priorities being different. The Curse of the Squirrel: - Fr. Beaublat, until recently prior of Palyamkottai, India, has now left But what of the bad news? How does this relate to France? If you have not already guessed, the SSPX to join the Novus Ordo diocese of it is that at least two of the French priests (if our information is correct) are now sede- Toulon. Perhaps readers will recall how a few months ago, Fr. Beaublat, as creator and for- vacantists of one form or another. This is not to cast a pall over all of them. No doubt there mer editor of the now-defunct “Flying Squirrel,” was stoutly defended by Fr. are others who will prove differently, and as in the case of Germany and Austria mentioned Robert Brucciani? Ignoring the reams of evidence presented by the actual maga- above, we can see what a huge difference only one priest can make if he has the right zine itself, filled as it was from cover to cover with the most outrageous, blatant approach and attitude. Our Lord’s words in the Gospel about judging the tree by its fruits, it modernism (mediating on how it feels to be a door?!), Fr. Brucciani reached the seems to us, are as true as ever here, as I will attempt to demonstrate. perfectly natural and reasonable conclusion that it was really all the fault of the In recent months a certain amount of damage and weakening has been caused in chapels wicked Resistance, and that poor Fr. Beaublat was the injured party! founded by Resistance priests by the deliberate efforts of sedevacantist priests. Unlike our “Fr. Beaublat is not a liberal,” he wrote, “he is just indulgent (perhaps to a own efforts to get out of the clutches of the neo-SSPX, the issue here is not doctrinal (the fault).” Of course! How could anyone think otherwise! He continued: SSPX accepts the doctrine of modern Rome!) but personal (‘I am of the opinion that Francis “Unfortunately, I did not foresee the scurrilous campaign of the dishonourable is not the Pope and that’s all that matters!’) Furthermore, there has been no open declaration priests who have the effrontery of calling themselves the ‘Resistance’ or even of war: these priests do not openly state their goals. Often, their way into the Resistance worse, ‘The Marian Corps.’” chapel is that they allow themselves to be thought of as a Resistance priest, and do not alert Would Fr. Brucciani like to alter his assessment of the situation in light of recent events, or people to their own change of priority or of thinking until the damage is done from inside. does he stand by his words? Is this too the fault of the “scurrilous” Resistance (perhaps we The words: “I’m not a sedevacantist! I just don't mention Francis in the Canon because I somehow “made” poor Fr. Beaublat leave the SSPX and join a modernist diocese?) don’t think he is the Pope!” are not mere hyperbole: they have been spoken in all seriousness www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Page 2 Editorial SSPX Watch Page 31 “Society of St. John Vianney” which once fought along side the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (before they ‘jumped the gun,’ selling-out to modernist Rome before Bishop Fellay was SSPX - building bridges using the 1983 Code of Canon Law - via Fr. Chazal ready!) The principle object of the comes the news that Fr. Angles openly admits to deliberately getting the SSPX to move meeting can thus be considered as over to using the new Code of Canon law. Fr. Angles supposedly is quite unabashed about broadly having been achieved, namely this, admitting that although he prefers the new code, his main motive is “so as to build to establish the Resistance in France, bridges between us and the official [i.e. conciliar] church.” by getting the SSPX using the something which had nonetheless still same code as modern Rome, thus eliminating at least one of the differences between not properly been begun, despite the modern Rome and the SSPX. Marriage cases in particular, we are told, are now done presence of three persecuted former- exclusively according to the new code (marriage is precisely one of the areas where the SSPX priests (Frs. Pinaud, Rioult and new code is most at odds with Catholic teaching!) Salenave) for more than a year now. Astute readers will recall that the official position of the SSPX for the last two years (since Besides the Dominicans themselves, April 2012) has been one of complete and unqualified acceptance of the 1983 code of can- there are now a good half-dozen priests on law. That remains the case today, without a word of protest. in France itself (perhaps more?) who have left the SSPX and can in that sense be considered “fully Resistance”. It is to be hoped that we will soon see a good dozen or more Resistance “The train is leaving for Rome, and those who want to get off will get off.” Mass centres springing up all around France. When one considers the thirty-or-more Re- - Fr. Nely, 2nd Assistant (cf. Eleison Comments No.367) sistance Mass centres in North America alone (not to mention a seminary, of course!) which are serviced in the main by just two priests, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko, with some extra help (Fr. Voigt, Fr. Girouard, Fr. Chazal, on his occasional short visits...) So far there have been N.B. - New Website for no French Resistance Mass centres publicly known about, or if any existed the information Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary: about its address and location was difficult to come by. Since the setting up of the website “France Fidele”, there is now a grand total of one (1) Resistance Mass listed on its “Centres olmcs.jimdo.com de Messe” page at the time of writing. We must hope and pray that this changes fast.

As has been mentioned in the past, one of the differences between the Resistance and the Other Useful Websites: slowly unravelling neo-SSPX is the Apostolic spirit, the Apostolicity. How is it then that there could be priests resist Menzingen’s modernism and who leave the neo-SSPX who are in www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com any way less than apostolic? There may be various possible contributing factors, and it may be that each case is different, but from what I have been able to observe of the SSPX and the www.ecclesiamilitans.com

Resistance in this last year there seems to be one deciding factor, and it is a subject which www.truetrad.com must be dealt with as something which threatens to undermine the spirit and raison-d'être of the Resistance. I am speaking of sedevacantism. I use the word “sedevacantism” here as it is www.sacrificium.org commonly understood, to represent an idea, not especially to represent any one group who www.archbishoplefebvre.com espouse it. Readers may recall a previous editorial asking where the sedevacantist soup kitchens are to be found - one thing I find most worrying about sedevacantism is that some- www.resistere.org how it always seems to lead to a diminution of the apostolic spirit. Real life events appear to bear this out. filiimariae.over-blog.com (French)

Let us take the German speaking countries as an example. In this part of the world, similarly to in France, there are at least six priests who have left the SSPX since 2012 for what appear nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.co.uk (Spanish) to be the right reasons. And yet how many Mass centres are there, between these six priests? How many groups of faithful? Where is the growth of people being woken up and encouraged www.beneditinos.org.br to join together and act? Make no mistake, there is a growth of the Resistance, there are Mass (Portugese) centres, there are groups of faithful. Munich (Germany), Aigen (Austria) and Budapest (Hungary) in particular come to mind. And they are all ministered to by Fr. Fuchs - when he rexcz.blogspot.cz is not also visiting other places (England, Scotland, Czech Republic...) - the one priest who (Czech) insists that he will not entertain a sedevacantist stance as he sees it as a deviation and

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com Issue 19 August 2014 The Recusant

An unofficial SSPX newsletter, fighting a guerrilla war for the soul of Tradition.

“You know that there are certain people who call themselves, how are they called, Resistance? I wish I would know what they resist! . . . You find modernism, you find heresies, I don’t say in the Council itself, but in what is said, what is spread in the name of the Council today, you have heresies.”

- Bishop Fellay, April 2014

“Holy abandonment is found ‘not in resignation FROM THE DESK OF Inside: THE EDITOR: and laziness but at the heart of action and initia-

Dear Reader, tive.’ It would be dishonest to pray for victory without really fighting for it. [...] ‘The things I pray  Little Catechism on The summer brings both good news and bad Sedevacantism news, and it is to both of these that I wish to for’, St. Thomas More prayed magnanimously, (Avrillé Dominicans) dwell for a moment.

‘dear Lord, give me the grace to work for.’” The good news concerns the resistance in France.  Long Live Emperor (“The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre” p. 568) Originally the idea of the prior of Santa Cruz Nullaparte! Monastery in Brazil, Dom Tomas Aquinas OSB, (Fr. Chazal) and Fr. Pfeiffer, a meeting of Resistance priests was hosted on July 13th-14th by the Dominican  The Fall and Drift priory of La Haye aux Bonshommes, Avrillé, of Le Barroux France. Although principally intended as a meet- Contact us: ing for French priests, since no country or district (Pere Bruno, OSB) can ever consider itself completely isolated from

or unconcerned with its neighbours, and since the [email protected]  SSPX Watch! Resistance of its very nature has an undeniably www.TheRecusant.com international character, just like the SSPX always used to have, so it is pleasing to note that there were several visitors from overseas who were able to be present at these important proceedings, priests such as Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Fuchs and Fr. Trincado.

The main thing to come out of this meeting was the constituting of the French resistance clergy into a “Society of Marcel Lefebvre,” which seems to be something similar to the

www.TheRecusant.com www.TheRecusant.com